The preferences of women with ovarian cancer for oral versus intravenous recurrence regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To assess preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding features of available anti-cancer regimens for platinum-resistant, biomarker-positive disease, with an emphasis on oral PARP inhibitor and standard intravenous (IV) chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A discrete-choice-experiment preferences survey was designed, tested, and administered to women with ovarian cancer, with 11 pairs of treatment profiles defined using seven attributes (levels/ranges): regimen (oral daily, IV weekly, IV monthly); probability of progression-free (PFS) at 6 months (40%-60%); probability of PFS at 2 years (10%-20%); nausea (none, moderate); peripheral neuropathy (none, mild, moderate); memory problems (none, mild); and total out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $10,000). RESULTS: Of 123 participants, 38% had experienced recurrence, 25% were currently receiving chemotherapy, and 18% were currently taking a PARP inhibitor. Given attributes and levels, the relative importance weights (sum 100) were: 2-year PFS, 28; cost, 27; 6-month PFS, 19; neuropathy,14; memory problems, nausea, and regimen, all ≤5. To accept moderate neuropathy, participants required a 49% (versus 40%) chance of PFS at 6 months or 14% (versus 10%) chance at 2 years. Given a 3-way choice where PFS and cost were equal, 49% preferred a monthly IV regimen causing mild memory problems, 47% preferred an oral regimen causing moderate nausea, and 4% preferred a weekly IV regimen causing mild memory and mild neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings challenge the assumption that oral anti-cancer therapies are universally preferred by patients and demonstrate that there is no "one size fits all" regimen that is preferable to women with ovarian cancer when considering recurrence treatment regimens.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib maintenance therapy when used with and without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

Objectives: To determine whether olaparib maintenance therapy, used with and without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status, is cost-effective at the population level for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer in Singapore.Methods: A partitioned survival model compared three management strategies: 1) treat all patients with olaparib; 2) test for germline BRCA1/2 mutation, followed by targeted olaparib use in mutation carriers only; 3) observe all patients. Mature overall survival (OS) data from Study 19 and a 15-year time horizon were used and direct medical costs were applied. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.Results: Treating all patients with olaparib was the most costly and effective strategy, followed by targeted olaparib use, and observation of all patients. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for all-olaparib and targeted use strategies were SGD133,394 (USD100,926) and SGD115,736 (USD87,566) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively, compared to observation. ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of olaparib, time horizon and discount rate for outcomes. When these parameters were varied, ICERs remained above SGD92,000 (USD69,607)/QALY.Conclusions: At the current price, olaparib is not cost-effective when used with or without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status in Singapore, despite taking into account potential OS improvement over a long time horizon.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in the first-line maintenance setting vs. surveillance in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model over a 50-year lifetime horizon was developed. Piecewise models were applied to data from the phase III trial SOLO1 to extrapolate survival outcomes. Health state utilities and adverse event disutilities were obtained from literature and SOLO1. Treatment costs, adverse event costs, and medical costs associated with health states were obtained from publicly available databases, SOLO1, and real-world data. Time on treatment was estimated using the data from SOLO1. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) gained were estimated. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, olaparib was associated with an additional 3.63 LYs and 2.93 QALYs, and an incremental total cost of $152,545 vs. surveillance. Incremental cost per LY gained and per QALY gained for olaparib were $42,032 and $51,986, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below $100,000 across a range of inputs and scenarios. In the PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost-effective at a $100,000 per QALY threshold was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surveillance, olaparib increases both the LYs and QALYs of women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation. Olaparib offers a cost-effective maintenance option for these women from a US third-party payer perspective.

Movement of Poly-ADP Ribose (PARP) Inhibition into Frontline Treatment of Ovarian Cancer.

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in the front-line management of advanced ovarian cancer has recently emerged as an exciting strategy with the potential to improve outcomes for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. In this article, we review the results of four recently published Phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of PARP inhibitors in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer (SOLO1, PRIMA, PAOLA-1, and VELIA). Collectively, the studies suggest that PARP maintenance in the upfront setting is most beneficial among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers (hazard ratios range from 0.31 to 0.44), followed by patients with tumours that harbour homologous recombination deficiencies (hazard ratios range from 0.33 to 0.57). All three studies that included an all-comer population were able to demonstrate benefit of PARP inhibitors, regardless of biomarker status. The FDA has approved olaparib for front-line maintenance therapy among patients with BRCA-associated ovarian cancers, and niraparib for all patients, regardless of biomarker status. In determining which patients should be offered front-line maintenance PARP inhibitors, and which agent to use, there are multiple factors to consider, including FDA indication, dosing preference, toxicity, risks versus benefits for each patient population, and cost. There are ongoing studies further exploring the front-line use of PARP inhibitors, including the potential downstream effects of PARP-inhibitor resistance in the recurrent setting, combining PARP-inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, immunotherapeutic agents, and inhibitors of pathways implicated in PARP inhibitor resistance.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. METHODS: Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved. RESULTS: For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor regimens for ovarian cancer in phase III randomized controlled trials: a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (PARPi) regimens in BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer for patients responsive to front-line platinum (bevacizumab and olaparib, veliparib and chemotherapy, olaparib) or platinum-sensitive relapsed (olaparib, rucaprib, niraparib) patients in phase III randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A network meta-analysis was utilized to generate the direct and indirect comparisons. The primary outcomes for network meta-analysis were efficacy (hazard ratios for progression-free survival in BRCA mutation cohort) and toxicity (odds ratios for all grade 3-4 adverse events). The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) value framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the PARPi regimens. RESULTS: Network meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant differences in efficacy and toxicity among the assessed upfront or relapsed PARPi regimens (95% CI included 1). The ASCO value framework indicated that current PARPi regimens were similar in clinical benefits, toxicity, and net health benefit in the upfront (bevacizumab and olaparib, veliparib and chemotherapy, olaparib) and relapsed setting (olaparib, rucaprib, niraparib). The addition of bevacizumab to olaparib ($353.72) increased the cost per unit net health benefit for patients compared with olaparib monotherapy ($260.57). The upfront PARPi regimens had lower toxic scores than the regimens used at relapse. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of PARPi regimens both in the upfront and relapsed setting should consider not only efficacy and toxicity but also costs in BRCA mutation patients. Current combining PARPi regimens are not recommended for such patients in the upfront setting from the cost-effective perspective. Upfront PARPi regimens are less toxic than those used at relapse.

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non­platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS: Non­platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non­platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

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.

Patient preferences for maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To measure preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding risks, side effects, costs and benefits afforded by maintenance therapy (MT) with a poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment elicited preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding 6 attributes (levels in parentheses) relevant to decisions for MT versus treatment break: (1) overall survival (OS; 36, 38, 42 months); (2) progression-free survival (PFS; 15, 17, 21 months); (3) nausea (none, mild, moderate); (4) fatigue (none, mild, moderate); (5) probability of death from myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia (MDS/AML; 0% to 10%); (6) monthly out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $1000). Participants chose between 2 variable MT scenarios and a static scenario representing treatment break, with multiple iterations. Random-parameters logit regression was applied to model choices as a function of attribute levels. RESULTS: 95 eligible participants completed the survey; mean age was 62, 48% had recurrence, and 17% were ever-PARP inhibitor users. Participants valued OS (average importance weight 24.5 out of 100) and monthly costs (24.6) most highly, followed by risk of death from MDS/AML (17.9), nausea (14.7), PFS (10.5) and fatigue (7.8). Participants would accept 5% risk of MDS/AML if treatment provided 2.2 months additional OS or 4.8 months PFS. Participants would require gains of 2.6 months PFS to accept mild treatment-related fatigue and 4.4 months to accept mild nausea. CONCLUSIONS: When considering MT, women with ovarian cancer are most motivated by gains in OS. Women expect at least 3-4 months of PFS benefit to bear mild side effects of treatment.

Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response assessment of veliparib co-administered with temozolomide in patients with myeloid leukemias.

PURPOSE: Veliparib is an oral inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme. Combination of veliparib and temozolomide was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity in older patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML arising from pre-existing myeloid malignancies. We aimed to perform quantitative assessments of pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of veliparib in this patient population to inform future trial design. METHODS: Population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using Phoenix® NLME with pharmacokinetic data obtained from 37 subjects after oral administration of veliparib in a Phase I study with and without temozolomide. Effect of covariates (age, sex, BMI, creatinine clearance (CLCR), and co-administration of temozolomide) on the pharmacokinetics of veliparib were evaluated, as well as impact of veliparib exposure on mucositis (dose-limiting toxicity), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival. RESULTS: A two-compartment model with first-order elimination and a first-order absorption with lag-time adequately described veliparib pharmacokinetics. CLCR and body weight were clinically significant covariates for veliparib disposition. The proportion of subjects with all grade mucositis increased with veliparib exposure (AUC). However, no trend in ORR and overall survival was observed with increasing exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib with temozolomide presents a promising combination for older patients with myeloid leukemias. An exposure-safety relationship was established for this combination. Further clinical investigations aimed at elucidating the veliparib exposure-efficacy/safety relationship and optimizing dosing recommendations for maximizing benefit-risk in patients with advanced myeloid malignancies should study veliparib doses ranging up to 120 mg in combination with temozolomide.

Cost-Effectiveness of Niraparib Versus Routine Surveillance, Olaparib and Rucaparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib compared with routine surveillance (RS), olaparib and rucaparib for the maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: A decision-analytic model estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for niraparib versus RS, olaparib, and rucaparib from a US payer perspective. The model considered recurrent OC patients with or without germline BRCA mutations (gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut), who were responsive to their last platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Model health states were: progression-free disease, progressed disease and dead. Mean progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using parametric survival distributions based on ENGOT-OV16/NOVA (niraparib phase III trial), ARIEL3 (rucaparib phase III trial) and Study 19 (olaparib phase II trial). Mean overall survival (OS) benefit was estimated as double the mean PFS benefit based on the relationship between PFS and OS observed in Study 19. Costs included: drug, chemotherapy, monitoring, adverse events, and terminal care. EQ-5D utilities were estimated from trial data. RESULTS: Compared to RS, niraparib was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$68,287/QALY and US$108,287/QALY for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. Compared to olaparib and rucaparib, niraparib decreased costs and increased QALYs, with a cost saving of US$8799 and US$22,236 versus olaparib and US$198,708 and US$73,561 versus rucaparib for gBRCAmut and non-gBRCAmut, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Niraparib was estimated to be less costly and more effective compared to olaparib and rucaparib, and the ICER fell within an acceptable range compared to RS. Therefore, niraparib may be considered a cost-effective maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent OC.