Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus folfirinox in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer in china.

OBJECTIVES: Nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane®) plus gemcitabine (AG) and Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have shown significant clinical benefit and been widely used as 1st-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) in China. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of AG versus FOLFIRINOX regimen for the treatment of mPC patients in China. METHODS: Markov model was developed with a lifetime survival projection in Microsoft Excel® to simulate the progression of the mPC over time. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resource consumption in the health care sector and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: AG regimen provided an effectiveness of 1.35 QALY at an average cost of USD 22,300 whereas FOLFIRINOX regimen brought 0.82 QALY at a cost of USD 22,980 in lifetime horizon. Therefore, AG regimen was dominant with an ICER of USD -1300 compared with FOLFIRINOX regimen. AG arm generated less drug cost, medical cost, hospitalization cost, and end-of-life cost than FOLFIRINOX arm did. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of base case findings. CONCLUSIONS: AG is likely a cost-effective option for the 1st-line mPC treatment compared with FOLFIRINOX in China from the perspective of healthcare system.

Assessment of efficacy of postinfusion tubing flushing in reducing risk of cytotoxic contamination.

PURPOSE: Infusion of cytotoxic drugs carries the risk of occupational exposure of healthcare workers. Since disconnecting an infusion line is a source of contamination, flushing of tubing after infusion of cytotoxic agents is recommended, but the optimal volume of rinsing solution is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess whether postinfusion line flushing completely eliminates cytotoxics. METHODS: Infusions were simulated with 3 cytotoxics (gemcitabine, cytarabine, and paclitaxel) diluted in 5% dextrose injection or 0.9% sodium chloride injection in 250-mL infusion bags. Infusion lines were flushed using 5% dextrose injection or 0.9% sodium chloride solution at 2 different flow rates. The remaining concentration of cytotoxics in the infusion line was measured by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method after passage of every 10 mL of flushing volume until a total of 100 mL had been flushed through. RESULTS: All cytotoxics remained detectable even after line flushing with 80 mL of flushing solution (a volume 3-fold greater than the dead space volume within the infusion set). Gemcitabine and cytarabine were still quantifiable via HPLC even after flushing with 100 mL of solution. Efficacy of flushing was influenced by the lipophilicity of drugs but not by either the flushing solvent used or the flushing flow rate. After 2-fold dead space volume flushing, the estimated amount of drug remaining in the infusion set was within 0.19% to 0.56% of the prescribed dose for all 3 cytotoxics evaluated. CONCLUSION: Complete elimination of cytotoxics from an infusion line is an unrealistic objective. Two-fold dead space volume flushing could be considered optimal in terms of administered dose but not from an environmental contamination point of view. Even when flushed, the infusion set should still be considered a source of cytotoxic contamination.

Cost-effectiveness of Capecitabine + Irinotecan Versus Leucovorin + Fluorouracil + Irinotecan in the Second-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: The AXEPT trial demonstrated that modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine + irinotecan) was noninferior to standard treatment with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil + leucovorin + irinotecan), both ± bevacizumab, in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The present study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mXELIRI versus FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of mCRC. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and health outcomes of mXELIRI and FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC from the Chinese payer perspective. Survival data, transition probabilities, and health utility values were obtained from published studies. The costs of drugs were obtained from the West China Hospital. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were regarded as the primary end points. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty of parameters in the analysis. FINDINGS: The effectiveness was found to be 0.48 QALYs (1.14 LYs) in the mXELIRI arm and 0.41 QALYs (1.05 LYs) in the FOLFIRI arm, with total costs of 29,896.41 US dollars (USD) in the mXELIRI arm and 28,894.68 USD in the FOLFIRI arm. The ICER and ICUR with mXELIRI versus FOLFIRI were 11,130.33 USD/LY and 14,310.43 USD/QALY gained, which were less than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China (25,840.88 USD/QALY). IMPLICATIONS: Based on the results of this study, mXELIRI was found to be a cost-effective alternative to FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of mCRC in patients in China.

Real-World Assessment of Health Care Costs for Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Following Initiation of First-Line Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Management of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA) places a significant financial burden on the U.S. health care system because of such factors as treatment with multidrug chemotherapy regimens, management of chemotherapy-related adverse events, and disease- or treatment-related hospitalizations. Depending on functional status, first-line chemotherapy regimens that are guideline recommended include nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine (AG) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX), the combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. However, few previous studies have examined overall health care costs associated with mPDA management. OBJECTIVE: To describe health care costs following initiation of first-line treatment with AG or FFX among patients with mPDA. METHODS: Retrospective cohorts of first-line AG and FFX initiators were constructed from the MarketScan database (2014-2017). The index date was the date of first-line AG or FFX initiation. Included patients had insurance enrollment for 6 months before the index date. Total cumulative health care costs and costs from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, emergency department visits, chemotherapy administrations, and pharmacy dispensing were assessed within 12 months after the index date (i.e., 0-1, 0-2, …, 0-12 months). Patient-level cost data began accruing from the first paid claim and continued accruing until the censoring date. RESULTS: A total of 2,199 patients with mPDA initiated first-line AG (n = 1,352) or FFX (n = 847). Compared with AG initiators, FFX patients were younger (mean age 59 vs. 63 years) and had better baseline health status, with fewer having diabetes (43% vs. 57%) or coronary artery disease (12% vs. 22%). Median follow-up was 5.4 and 7.2 months for AG and FFX, respectively. Median first-line treatment duration was 2.1 months with AG and 2.3 months with FFX. Six months following first-line treatment initiation, total cumulative health care costs (median) were $85,714 (95% CI = $79,683-$91,788) and $114,116 (95% CI = $105,816-$119,591) for AG and FFX initiators, respectively. Outpatient services contributed the largest fractional cost for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Total health care costs for patients with mPDA who initiated FFX or AG are driven mostly by outpatient rather than inpatient costs. Further research, using comparative methodology, is warranted to fully understand cost drivers and whether higher costs for FFX patients relate primarily to use of FFX or higher underlying use of outpatient care among FFX patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. Oestreicher and Yeganegi were employees of Halozyme Therapeutics at the time of the study and were involved in study design, data interpretation, and the decision to submit the data for publication. Bullock reports advisory board fees from Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, and Taiho and consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Rowan reports consulting fees from Halozyme Therapeutics, during the conduct of the study. Chiorean reports grants and consulting fees from Celgene and Halozyme Therapeutics; grants from Lilly, Stemline, Ignyta, Roche, Merck, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Incyte, Macrogenics, Rafael, and AADi; and consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Array, Eisai, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Vicus, and Legend, outside the submitted work.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil for induction chemotherapy of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recently, patients who received induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were found to have survival advantages compared with those receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in two large randomized trials. Based on these two trials, we present a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) versus cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel (TPF) for induction chemotherapy to treat locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of GP versus TPF. Clinical data including the frequency of adverse events, recurrence and death obtained from two randomized phase III trials were used to calculate transition probabilities and costs. Health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $27,534.25/QALY (3 × the per capita GDP of China, 2018) were considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Our base case model found that the total cost was $53,082.68 in the GP group and $45,482.66 in the TPF group. The QALYs were 6.82 and 4.11, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favoured the GP regimen, at an incremental cost of $2,804.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that treatment with the GP regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,534.25‬/QALY. CONCLUSION: In this model, GP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma from the payer's perspectives in the China.

Prognostic Value of Patient Knowledge of Cancer on Quality of Life in Advanced Lung Cancer During Chemotherapy.

The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of cancer knowledge and patient's lifestyle on QOL and the relationship between QOL and various environmental factors in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. The study group consisted of 129 patients with metastatic lung cancer patients treated between May 2010 and December 2015 in two centres. The knowledge of cancer and their lifestyle was rated by method of diagnostic survey, using the Behavioral Health Inventory IZZ by Prof. Juczynski. We sought factors affecting to response to treatment, overall survival and quality of life. The general level of knowledge of cancer and the level of health behaviours was low. Ninety percent of lung cancer patients were smokers. The average age of the study group was 64 years. Eighty-nine patients received chemotherapy with cisplatin, 28 schemes containing carboplatin, 6 inhibitors of EGFR tyrosine kinase, and 6 vinorelbine or gemcitabine monotherapy. Complete regression was observed in 2 patients, partial response in 33 patients (26%), stable disease in 51 (40%) and 54 (42%) patients had progression. In multivariate analysis, significant effects on survival were performance status, schemes of treatment and response to treatment. Quality of life before and after treatment did not differ from each other. We found impact on quality of life: performance status, response to treatment and knowledge of cancer and lifestyle. The level of knowledge of oncological patients and their lifestyle observed in clinical practice are associated with QOL.

S-1 or gemcitabine adjuvant therapy in resected pancreatic cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the JASPAC-01 trial.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatments in resected pancreatic cancer.Methods: A Markov model was developed to mimic the disease process of postoperative pancreatic cancer, encompassing three health states (relapse-free survival, recurrent disease, and death). Health outcomes and utility scores were derived from the phase III trial and available literature. Cost data were calculated using standard fee data from the West China Hospital for 2017. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to explore model uncertainty.Results: Treatment with S-1 was estimated to yield 1.61 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost of $25,696, whereas treatment with gemcitabine yielded 1.27 QALYs at a cost of $28,930. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of S-1 versus gemcitabine was $-9,490 per QALY. Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $25,841 per QALY, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was $15,786 for S-1 and $3,727 for gemcitabine, generating the incremental NMB of $12,059. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probabilities of S-1 and gemcitabine being cost-effective were 92% and 8%, respectively. Results were robust to changes in parameters.Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy using S-1 is a cost-effective alternative compared to gemcitabine in patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer from the Chinese societal perspective.

Computational modeling of therapy on pancreatic cancer in its early stages.

More than eighty percent of pancreatic cancer involves ductal adenocarcinoma with an abundant desmoplastic extracellular matrix surrounding the solid tumor entity. This aberrant tumor microenvironment facilitates a strong resistance of pancreatic cancer to medication. Although various therapeutic strategies have been reported to be effective in mice with pancreatic cancer, they still need to be tested quantitatively in wider animal-based experiments before being applied as therapies. To aid the design of experiments, we develop a cell-based mathematical model to describe cancer progression under therapy with a specific application to pancreatic cancer. The displacement of cells is simulated by solving a large system of stochastic differential equations with the Euler-Maruyama method. We consider treatment with the PEGylated drug PEGPH20 that breaks down hyaluronan in desmoplastic stroma followed by administration of the chemotherapy drug gemcitabine to inhibit the proliferation of cancer cells. Modeling the effects of PEGPH20 + gemcitabine concentrations is based on Green's fundamental solutions of the reaction-diffusion equation. Moreover, Monte Carlo simulations are performed to quantitatively investigate uncertainties in the input parameters as well as predictions for the likelihood of success of cancer therapy. Our simplified model is able to simulate cancer progression and evaluate treatments to inhibit the progression of cancer.

Preclinical Assessment with Clinical Validation of Selinexor with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for the Treatment of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a deadly disease urgently requiring new treatments. Overexpression of the protein transporter exportin-1 (XPO1) leads to mislocalization of tumor-suppressor proteins (TSP) and their inactivation. Earlier, we showed that blocking XPO1 by CRISPR/Cas9 validated Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compounds (selinexor and analogs) restores the antitumor activity of multiple TSPs leading to suppression of PDAC in vitro and in orthotopic models. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We evaluate the synergy between SINE compounds and standard-of-care treatments in preclinical models and in a PDAC Phase Ib trial. RESULTS: SINE compounds synergize with gemcitabine (GEM) and nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel leading to suppression of PDAC cellular growth and cancer stem cell (CSC) spheroids disintegration. Label-free quantitative proteome profiling with nuclear and cytoplasmic enrichment showed superior enhancement in nuclear protein fraction in combination treatment. Selinexor inhibited the growth of PDAC CSC and two patient-derived (PDX) subcutaneous xenografts. Selinexor-GEM-nab-paclitaxel blocked PDX and orthotopic tumor growth. In a phase 1b study (NCT02178436), 9 patients were exposed to selinexor (60 mg oral) with GEM (1,000 mg/m2 i.v.) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2 i.v.) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 28-day cycle. Two patients showed partial response, and 2 had stable disease. An outstanding, durable objective response was observed in one of the responders with progression-free survival of 16 months and overall survival of 22 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our preclinical and ongoing clinical study lends support to the use of selinexor-GEM-nab-paclitaxel as an effective therapy for metastatic PDAC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase III trial demonstrated that gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival compared with fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The cost-effectiveness analysis was designed to identify the economic option for metastatic NPC from a Chinese societal perspective. METHODS: We established a Markov model that involved three health states representing the stages of disease to simulate therapy. Survival data of clinical outcomes were derived from the trial and adjusted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Transition probabilities and health utilities were obtained from the clinical trial and published literatures. The cost-effective strategy was estimated for these treatments using a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to study the influences of parameters. RESULTS: GP treatment group produced a gain of 0.37 QALYs with an incremental cost of $2520.80, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6812.97 per QALY, compared with FP treatment ($15,530.96 versus $13,010.16). The ICER was lower than the accepted WTP threshold, which was 3 times gross domestic product per capita of China ($25,749 per QALY). CONCLUSION: GP regimen is more cost-effective compared with FP regimen as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with metastatic NPC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Compared with conventional fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) regimen, gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) can prolong survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, but the economic impact of this practice remains unknown. It's significant to evaluate its values by taking both efficacy and cost into consideration. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with 10 years horizon to compare the cost-effectiveness of GP and FP regimen. Clinical data came from a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Direct costs related to the treatment were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Utility values were gathered from published study. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to confirm the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The total cost of FP regimen was $12,587 and yielded 0.964 QALYs, while the total cost of GP regimen was $17,920 and yielded 1.685 QALYs. The ICER of GP regimen versus FP regimen was $7,386 which was far less than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($26,508) in China. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system, GP regimen with superior efficacy was proved to be more cost-effective than the traditional FP regimen. It is likely that GP regimen may be recommended as the primarily first-line treatment option for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Clinical assessment of palliative radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and response to radiotherapy for improving the symptoms and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 31 eligible patients (20 men, 11 women) with pancreatic cancer who were receiving radiotherapy from February 2012 to February 2014. The prescribed dose was 40 to 42Gy delivered to the planning target volume in seven to ten fractions of 4 to 6Gy. Patients completed Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Functional Assessment Of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep), and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality Of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) one week prior to radiotherapy, and one and three months after treatment. The main outcome was the evaluation of the proportion of patients with less pain and reduced clinical symptoms after one month of radiotherapy compared to before treatment according to the BPI, FACT-Hep and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. RESULTS: Of 31 patients, 28 completed the questionnaires. According to BPI evaluation, symptoms were improved in 57% of patients; the FACT-General (FACT-G) and liver function subscales revealed that there was symptom improvement in 89% and 7.1% of patients, respectively. Six items in the EORTC QLQ-C30 were improved. CONCLUSIONS: Following treatment, pain and clinical symptoms were improved in a considerable proportion of patients with pancreatic cancer, proving that palliative radiotherapy is feasible for pancreatic cancer.

A multicenter phase 4 geriatric assessment directed trial to evaluate gemcitabine +/- nab-paclitaxel in elderly pancreatic cancer patients (GrantPax).

BACKGROUND: In the group of elderly patients (≥70 years) with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), it is not known who benefits from intensive 1st line nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-p/gem) combination chemotherapy or who would rather suffer from increased toxicity. We aim to determine whether treatment individualization by comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) improves functional outcome of the patients. METHODS/DESIGN: GrantPax is a multicenter, open label phase 4 interventional trial. We use a CGA to stratify elderly patients into three parallel treatment groups (n = 45 per arm): 1) GOGO (nab-p/gem), 2) SLOWGO (gem mono) or 3) FRAIL (best supportive care). After the 1st cycle of chemotherapy (or 4 weeks in FRAIL group) another CGA and safety assessment is performed. CGA-stratified patients may not decline in their CGA performance in response to the first cycle of chemotherapy (primary objective), measured as a loss of 5 points or less in Barthels activities of daily living. Based on the second CGA, patients are re-assigned to their definite treatment arm and undergo further CGAs to monitor the course of treatment. Secondary endpoints include CGA scores during the course of therapy (CGA1-4), response rates, safety and survival rates. DISCUSSION: GrantPax is the first trial implementing a CGA-driven treatment to personalize therapy for elderly patients with pancreatic cancer. This may lead to standardization of therapy decisions for elderly patients and may optimize standard of care for this increasing group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02812992 , registered 24.06.2016.

Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK. OBJECTIVE: Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK. METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

ERCC1 assessment in upfront treatment with and without cisplatin-based chemotherapy in stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Prior studies have demonstrated an association between excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) expression level and outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ERCC1 on survival for patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC (NS-NSCLC) enrolled in the INNOVATIONS trial, thus receiving as treatment either erlotinib/bevacizumab (EB) or cisplatin/gemcitabine/bevacizumab (PGB). We retrospectively analyzed tumor tissue of 72 patients using immunohistochemistry to assess the expression of ERCC1. The distribution between treatment arms was equal (36 patients each). Two different H scores were calculated and correlated with survival. In ERCC1-positive patients, no significant difference in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms has been detected. ERCC1-negative patients benefited from PGB compared to EB arm (H score: HR = 0.377, 95% CI [0.167-0.849], p = 0.0151; modified H score: HR = 0.484, 95% CI [0.234-1.004], p = 0.0468). With respect to the scoring system, in the EB-arm, a significant superior PFS turned out in ERCC1-positive patients when employing the H-score (HR = 0.430, 95% CI [0.188-0.981], p = 0.0397; median 4.9 vs. 3.9 months), but not with the modified H-score. Our findings support the hypothesis that NS-NSCLC displaying a low ERCC1 expression might benefit from cisplatin-based chemotherapy. High expression indicated better PFS in the EB arm supporting the prognostic impact. However, as impact of ERCC1-assessment even might depend on scoring systems differences, the need in standardization of assessment methodology is emphasized.

An Italian cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel albumin (nab-paclitaxel) + gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients: the APICE study.

BACKGROUND: the APICE study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel - Nab-P) + gemcitabine (G) vs G alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) from the Italian National Health Service (INHS) standpoint. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 4-year, 4 health states (progression-free; progressed; end of life; death) Markov model based on the MPACT trial was developed to estimate costs (Euro [€], 2017 values), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients were assumed to receive intravenously Nab-P 125 mg/m2 + G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or G alone 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 out of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles) until progression. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty surrounding the baseline incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). RESULTS: Nab-P + G totals 0.154 incremental QALYs and €7082.68 incremental costs vs G alone. ICUR (€46,021.58) is lower than the informal threshold value of €87,330 adopted by the Italian Medicines Agency during 2010-2013 for reimbursing oncological drugs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline findings. CONCLUSIONS: Nab-P + G in MPC patients can be considered cost-effective for the INHS.

The Pharmacological Costs of Second-Line Treatments for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In ovarian cancer, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrence; therefore, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the drugs administered and the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS and OS. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in Euros (&OV0556;). We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, including 2004 patients. The most relevant increase of costs was associated with the combination chemotherapy including trabectedin, with the highest costs for month of PFS gained (15,836 &OV0556;) and for month of OS gained (7198 &OV0556;), but it substantially differs considering the data of partially platinum-sensitive populations (platinum-free interval of 6-12 months), with 3959 &OV0556; for month of OS gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer can lead to an increase of pharmacological costs. Differently, considering OS in patients with platinum-free interval of 6 to 12 months, there is a halving of pharmacological costs with the addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. These costs are in line with the spending suggested as sustainable (thresholds of <$61,500 per life-year gained).

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.