The efficiency of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the assessment of tumor response to preoperative chemoradiation therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) remains a major problem after curative resection of primary rectal cancer. A noninvasive, prognostic biomarker with which to accurately evaluate disease status and assess the treatment response is critically needed to optimize treatment plans. This study assesses the effectiveness of PET/CT evaluation of preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in patients with LRRC. METHODS: Since 2004, we have been performing preoperative CRT to improve local tumor control and survival. Between 2004 and 2013, 40 patients with LRRC underwent preoperative CRT (radiation: 50 Gy/25 fractions; chemotherapy: irinotecan plus UFT [tegafur and uracil]/leucovorin) and radical surgery, and underwent 18F-FDG-PET/CT before and 3 weeks after the completion of CRT. The maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the pre-CRT scan (Pre-SUV) and the post-CRT scan (Post-SUV) were measured. The predictive value of the 18F-FDG-PET and CT/MRI response assessments was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean Pre-SUV was significantly higher than the Post-SUV (8.2 ± 6.1, vs. 3.8 ± 4.0; P < 0.0001). Following CRT, 17/40 patients (42.5%) were classified as responders according to the Mandard tumor regression grade (TRG1-2). The mean Post-SUV was significantly lower in responders than in nonresponders (2.0 ± 1.7 vs. 5.1 ± 3.9; P = 0.0038). Pathological response was not correlated with the response as evaluated by CT (P > 0.9999) or MRI (P > 0.9999). Multivariate regression analysis identified Post-SUV as an independent predictor of local re-recurrence-free survival (P = 0.0383) and for overall survival (P = 0.0195). CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT is useful in assessing tumor response to preoperative CRT for LRRC and predicting prognosis after surgery.

The impact of socioeconomic status on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.

Socioeconomic factors influence patterns of care in colorectal cancer. Our study investigates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on stage at presentation, receipt of diagnostic imaging, receipt of treatment and overall survival (OS) in a universal healthcare system. The Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) was accessed to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2007 to 2016 in Ontario, Canada. SES was measured using median neighborhood income divided into quintiles (Q1-Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate stage, imaging and treatment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate OS. All endpoints were adjusted for demographics and comorbidities with OS models also adjusting for stage, imaging and treatment. In total, 39 802 colon and 13 164 rectal patients were identified. Lower SES was associated with advanced stage at presentation in both cohorts (Q1 vs Q5: Colon odds ratio [OR] = 1.08, P = .046, rectal OR = 1.25, P < .0001). Lower SES colon patients were less likely to receive adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001) and all palliative chemotherapies studied including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.60, P < 0.0001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.65, P < .0001), bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.70, P < .001), cetuximab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.40, P = .0053) and panitumumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.54, P = .0036). In rectal patients, lower SES was associated with decreased receipt of rectal cancer resection for stages I-III (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.78, P < .001), adjuvant oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.72, P = .0020) and palliative chemotherapies including oxaliplatin (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.59, P < .001), irinotecan (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.53, P < .001) and bevacizumab (Q1 vs Q5: OR = 0.71, P = .046). All survival models identified poorer OS for lower SES patients (total colorectal; Q1 vs Q5: Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25, P < .0001). These findings suggest disparities persist even within universal healthcare.

Evaluation of the Cost-effectiveness of Doublet Therapy in Metastatic BRAF Variant Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The BEACON trial showed that combination therapy with encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) was associated with prolonged overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of using these agents in this clinical setting is unknown. Objective: To create a cost-effectiveness model to compare doublet therapy (encorafenib plus cetuximab) with standard chemotherapy (cetuximab plus irinotecan or cetuximab plus folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in treating patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation constructed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and utility of doublet therapy and standard chemotherapy. Parametric survival modeling was used to extrapolate the effectiveness of each line of therapy from large clinical trials. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty in the model. Patients mirrored the cohorts in the BEACON trial: they had metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer and were followed up as they progressed through multiple lines of therapy, best supportive care, and death. Data collection and data analysis were performed from November 15, 2019, to July 14, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was calculated using the cumulative cost and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of doublet therapy compared with standard chemotherapy. Results: The model patient cohort had a mean age of 61 years, and 53% of the patients were women, 66% had 1 previous line of therapy, and 8% had high microsatellite instability. Doublet therapy was associated with an improvement of 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy. However, the incremental cost of doublet therapy was $78 233, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $523 374 per QALY gained. Concomitant decreases in the price of encorafenib and cetuximab are needed to achieve cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that doublet therapy for metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer was unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in clinical trial design, particularly when combining new therapies with non-cost-effective treatments that are coadministered without a fixed duration.

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.

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.

Clinical Assessment of 5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin, Nab-Paclitaxel, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRABRAX) in Untreated Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer Using UGT1A1 Genotype-Guided Dosing.

PURPOSE: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin, irinotecan, and nab-paclitaxel are all active agents in gastrointestinal cancers; the combination, FOLFIRABRAX, has not been previously evaluated. UDP Glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1) clears SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan. UGT1A1*28 polymorphism reduces UGT1A1 enzymatic activity and predisposes to toxicity. We performed a trial to assess the safety and tolerability of FOLFIRABRAX with UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, advanced gastrointestinal cancers received FOLFIRABRAX with prophylactic pegfilgrastim every 14 days. UGT1A1 *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28 patients received initial irinotecan doses of 180, 135, and 90 mg/m2, respectively. 5-FU 2,400 mg/m2 over 46 hours, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 were administered. Doses were deemed tolerable if the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) rate during cycle 1 was ≤35% in each genotype group. DLTs were monitored using a sequential procedure. RESULTS: Fifty patients enrolled, 30 pancreatic, 9 biliary tract, 6 gastroesophageal, and 5 others. DLTs occurred in 5 of 23 (22%) *1/*1 patients, 1 of 19 (5%) *1/*28 patients, and 0 of 7 *28/*28 patients. DLTs were all grade 3: diarrhea (3 patients), nausea (2 patients), and febrile neutropenia (1 patient). The overall response rate was 31%. Response rates in pancreatic, gastroesophageal, and biliary tract cancers were 34%, 50%, and 11%, respectively. Eighteen patients (36%) received therapy for at least 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRABRAX with genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan is tolerable in patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer and UGT1A1*1*1 or UGT1A1*1*28 genotypes. Too few *28/*28 patients were enrolled to provide conclusive results. Responses occurred across multiple tumor types.

A Real-World Claims Analysis of Costs and Patterns of Care in Treated Patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) have a poor prognosis and high likelihood of recurrence. Routine care for incident cases in the United States involves surgical resection, followed by radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Real-world data reporting the treatments and health care burden associated with GBM are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of care, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs associated with treatment of GBM in the United States. METHODS: This study is a retrospective claims database analysis. Adult patients with a GBM diagnosis (index date) between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2016, who had undergone brain surgery within 90 days of the index date, had received temozolomide and/or RT up to 90 days after index date, and had at least 6 months of continuous enrollment before the index date, were identified. Patients were excluded if they had (a) another primary cancer within 6 months pre-index, (b) secondary brain metastases, or (c) received temozolomide and/or RT pre-index. Baseline characteristics, treatments, HCRU, and costs were reported. First-line therapy began upon first receipt of RT and/or temozolomide after index date; second-line therapy began when a new drug was added > 28 days after initiation of first-line therapy or when there was a treatment gap > 90 days. Treatment regimens, duration of treatment (corrected group prognosis method), HCRU, and costs were reported descriptively in the 0- to 6-month and 7- to 12-month periods following initiation of first-line and second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between patients receiving temozolomide and/or RT. Patients receiving RT without chemotherapy tended to be older, be retired, and have more baseline comorbidities. Of the 4,071 patients receiving first-line therapy for GBM, most (73.0%) received temozolomide + RT; 24.4% received RT; and 2.5% received temozolomide monotherapy. Of those receiving first-line therapy, 1,283 (31.5%) patients subsequently received second-line therapy: 39.4% received bevacizumab monotherapy; 28.9% received bevacizumab combination therapy (temozolomide, 45.2% of patients; irinotecan, 24.3%; and temozolomide + lomustine, 15.4%); 15.5% received temozolomide monotherapy; and 13.7% received other systemic cancer therapies. The proportion of patients with hospitalizations increased from 2.9% (4-6 months pre-index) to 20.8% in the 3 months before the index date (likely due to diagnostic procedures) and 28.1% in the first 6 months after index (likely due to surgery) and then decreased to 13.3% in the 7- to 12-month period after index. Mean total per-patient costs at 6 and 12 months were $117,325 and $162,550 (first line) and $126,128 and $243,833 (second line). Costs in all time periods were largely driven by costs of RT/systemic cancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with newly diagnosed GBM received treatment according to recommendations. However, relatively few patients received second-line therapy, and the HCRU burden and costs associated with both lines of therapy were substantial. Novel therapies for GBM are required to improve treatment options and outcomes in these patients. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (Princeton Pike, NJ). Neither honoraria nor payments were provided for authorship. Norden received consultancy fees relating to this study from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dastani, Korytowsky, Le, Singh, and You are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dastani and Korytowsky are shareholders of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bobiak was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of this study. Preliminary data from this study were previously presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 22nd Annual International Meeting in Boston, MA, May 20-24, 2017.

Total cell-free DNA, carcinoembryonic antigen, and C-reactive protein for assessment of prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

In late-stage metastatic colorectal cancer, difficult treatment decisions should incorporate a thorough evaluation of the patient's general condition and subject for shared decision making. Assessment of the individual patients' prognosis is valuable in this setting. The aim was to analyze the prognostic value of plasma levels of total cell-free DNA, carcinoembryonic antigen and C-reactive protein in 97 heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients received irinotecan, cetuximab, and everolimus in a phase-2 clinical trial ( clinicaltrials.gov NCT01387880). Plasma samples were used for DNA purification and quantification of total cell-free DNA by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen and C-reactive protein were analyzed by routine methods. Clinical endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. A total of 82 patients had blood samples available for quantification of total cell-free DNA. Patients with pre-treatment cell-free DNA levels higher than the median total cell-free DNA (9800 alleles per milliliter plasma) had a significantly shorter overall survival of 4.3 months (95% confidence interval: 3.6-5.8) compared to patients with cell-free DNA levels below the median with an overall survival of 11.3 months (95% confidence interval: 8.0-14.8, p < 0.0001). When using the upper normal limit from a previously analyzed normal control group, the median overall survival was 11.3 (95% confidence interval: 7.3-14.8) and 4.3 (95% confidence interval: 3.7-6.1) months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Serum carcinoembryonic antigen and C-reactive protein had similar prognostic value with short overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with elevated levels compared to those within normal range. A high-risk profile of elevated cell-free DNA, carcinoembryonic antigen, and C-reactive protein was described, but in combined Cox regression multivariate analysis, only total cell-free DNA preserved a strong prognostic value. In conclusion, total cell-free DNA in plasma, carcinoembryonic antigen, and C-reactive protein could all contribute to assessment of patients' prognosis and potentially aid in clinical decision making in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

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.

Cost Evaluation of Irinotecan-Related Toxicities Associated With the UGT1A1*28 Patient Genotype.

The adoption of a preemptive UGT1A1*28 genotyping to increase irinotecan safety in clinical practice is still limited. This is the first actual study of costs associated with the management of irinotecan-related toxicities, and their association with UGT1A1*28 genotype. A retrospective analysis of the cost of toxicity management was conducted on 243 metastatic colorectal cancer patients enrolled in a clinical trial and treated with standard of care FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil combined with irinotecan). The mean predicted cost per patient was higher for *28/*28 (€4,886), vs. *1/*1 (€812), (regression coefficient 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.31-2.28; P < 0.001) and for *1/*28 (€1,119) vs. *1/*1 (regression coefficient 0.32, 95% CI = 0.04-0.60; P = 0.024). This is consistent with a different grade 4 toxicity profile among the three genotypes, and a higher frequency of costly interventions like hospitalization among patients with the *28 allele. A differential toxicity management cost by *28 genotype is herein demonstrated, representing a first step towards the demonstration of the test clinical utility.