RETRACTED: Cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy and dostarlimab for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors. The authors have independently identified an error in the formula that was utilized to calculate the Quality Adjusted Life Years which invalidates the data and the conclusion of the paper. The authors have contacted the journal requesting to retract the article. Apologies are offered to the readers of the journal for any confusion or inconvenience that may have resulted from the publication of this article.

Cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib compared with chemotherapy for treating previously treated advanced endometrial cancer in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was recently approved for the treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma in women with disease progression on or following prior treatment with a platinum­containing therapy in any setting, and who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation (KEYNOTE-775/Study-309; NCT03517449). The objective was to assess the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib compared with chemotherapy from a Swedish healthcare perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime partitioned-survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed disease, death) was constructed. Chemotherapy was represented by paclitaxel or doxorubicin. Overall survival, progression-free survival, time on treatment, and utility data were obtained from KEYNOTE-775 (database lock: March 1, 2022). Costs (in 2020 Swedish Krona [SEK]) included drug acquisition and administration, health state, end of life, adverse event management, subsequent treatment, and societal (scenario analysis). Outcomes were calculated as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and life-years. Model results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for all-comers, patients with proficient mismatch repair tumors, and deficient mismatch repair tumors. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment when compared with chemotherapy, with estimated deterministic and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 795,712 and 819,757 per QALY gained. Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib was associated with a large incremental QALY and life-year gain per person versus chemotherapy over the model time horizon (1.49 and 1.76). LIMITATIONS: Time-to-event data were incomplete and semiparametric and parametric curves were utilized for lifetime extrapolation. Willingness-to-pay thresholds, costs, and utility weights vary by country, which would vary the treatment's cost effectiveness in different countries. CONCLUSIONS: This partitioned survival analysis suggests that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is cost effective compared with chemotherapy in Sweden for women with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma following previous systemic therapy. Results were robust to mismatch repair status and to changes in parameters/assumptions.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed. RESULTS: Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab). CONCLUSION: LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

A tale of two pathways: Review of immune checkpoint inhibitors in DNA mismatch repair-deficient and microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancers.

The DNA mismatch repair (MMR) pathway is critical for correcting DNA mismatches generated during DNA replication. MMR-deficiency (MMR-D) leads to microsatellite instability (MSI) associated with an increased mutation rate, driving cancer development. This is particularly relevant in endometrial cancer (EC) as 25%-30% of tumors are of MMR-D/MSI-high (MSI-H) phenotype. Comprehensive assessment using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and sequencing-based techniques are necessary to fully evaluate ECs given the importance of molecular subtyping in staging and prognosis. This also influences treatment selection as clinical trials have demonstrated survival benefits for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone and in combination with chemotherapy for MMR-D/MSI-H EC patients in various treatment settings. As a portion of MMR-D/MSI-H ECs are driven by Lynch syndrome, an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome that is also associated with colorectal cancer, this molecular subtype also prompts germline assessment that can affect at-risk family members. Additionally, heterogeneity in the tumor immune microenvironment and tumor mutation burden (TMB) have been described by MMR mechanism, meaning MLH1 promoter hypermethylation versus germline/somatic MMR gene mutation, and this may affect response to ICI therapies. Variations by ancestry in prevalence and mechanism of MMR-D/MSI-H tumors have also been reported and may influence health disparities given observed differences in tumors of Black compared to White patients which may affect ICI eligibility. These observations highlight the need for additional prospective studies to evaluate the nuances regarding MMR-D heterogeneity as well as markers of resistance to inform future trials of combination therapies to further improve outcomes for patients with EC.

Cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for recurrent mismatch repair-proficient endometrial cancer after platinum-based therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The recent Study 309-KEYNOTE-775 showed improved survival for lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer. We created a decision model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) endometrial cancer who had progressed after first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: A Markov model was created to simulate the clinical trajectory of 10,000 patients with recurrent pMMR endometrial cancer. The initial decision point in the model was treatment with ether lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or chemotherapy (doxorubicin or dose-dense paclitaxel). Model probabilities, utility values and costs were derived with assumptions drawn from published literature. A cycle length of 3 months and a time horizon of 2 years was used. The effectiveness was calculated in terms of average quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed in 2020 US dollars/QALYs. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was the least costly strategy at $66,693 followed by lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab ($193,590). Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab resulted in more patients being alive at 2 years (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab: 367, chemotherapy: 109). Chemotherapy was cost-effective compared with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (ICER: $164,493/QALYs). Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab became cost-effective when its cost was reduced by $1553 per month (7.8% reduction). CONCLUSION: For patients with recurrent pMMR endometrial cancer Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is associated with greater survival but is more costly than chemotherapy. The cost of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab would have to be reduced by approximately 7% to be considered cost-effective.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy for primary advanced mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), pembrolizumab or dostarlimab, to paclitaxel and carboplatin (TC) has shown better response rates and survival outcomes for patients with primary advanced mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) endometrial cancer (EC) in NRG-GY018 and RUBY, respectively. Nonetheless, the high cost of ICIs remains a major concern when implementing this strategy in the real world. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab and dostarlimab with chemotherapy compared to TC for primary advanced MMRd EC. METHODS: We developed a Markov model including 6600 patients with primary advanced MMRd EC to simulate treatment outcomes. The initial decision points in the model were treatment with pembrolizumab with TC (PEM-TC), dostarlimab with TC (DOS-TC), and TC. Model probabilities, costs, and health utility values were derived with assumptions from published literature. Effectiveness was determined as average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: TC was the least costly strategy, whereas PEM-TC was the most effective strategy for primary advanced MMRd EC. TC was cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY compared with PEM-TC (ICER, $377,718/QALY), and DOS-TC exhibited absolute dominance (ICER, $401,859/QALY). PEM-TC was cost-effective when the cost of pembrolizumab 200 mg was reduced to $4361 (61% reduction). PEM-TC was selected in 16.5% with a WTP threshold of $300,000/QALY, but in <1% with a WTP threshold range of $100,000-200,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: PEM-TC can become cost-effective for primary advanced MMRd EC when the cost of pembrolizumab substantially decreases.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer.

Background: A recent phase III clinical trial (NCT03981796) evaluated the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (DOS-CP) compared to placebo combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (PLB-CP) as a first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC). The NCT03981796 trial demonstrated that DOS-CP significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with advanced EC while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. However, DOS-CP is expensive and its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP compared to PLB-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC. Clinical efficacy data were derived from the NCT03981796 trial, and drug costs were determined based on national tender prices. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes assessed included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: In comparison to PLB-CP, the ICER of DOS-CP was $98,276.61/QALY for the overall population, $53,063.61/QALY for the dMMR subgroup, and $124,088.56/QALY for the pMMR subgroup. All of these ICER values were higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The most important variable that affected the results of the model was the discount rate, the cost of dostarlimab, and the utility value for progressive disease. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, DOS-CP is unlikely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced EC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor molecular testing in stage III endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard of care for adjuvant treatment of stage III endometrial cancer includes chemotherapy and radiation. In addition to stage, tumor molecular profiles may predict treatment outcomes, and prospective clinical trials are ongoing. However, tumor molecular testing is costly and time-consuming. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tumor molecular testing in stage III endometrial cancer. METHODS: A Markov decision model compared two strategies for stage III endometrial cancer: Tumor Molecular Testing (TMT) versus No TMT. TMT included sequential POLE next generation sequencing, mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (IHC), and p53 IHC. POLE-mutated patients were assigned to adjuvant radiation therapy; all others including controls were assigned to adjuvant chemoradiation. First recurrences were treated with 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel. Second recurrences were treated with pembrolizumab alone for mismatch repair deficient patients and both pembrolizumab and lenvatinib for other patients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness. RESULTS: Compared to No TMT, TMT was cost saving with equivalent effectiveness. On one-way sensitivity analysis, TMT remained cost saving over all parameter ranges. TMT was also favored on probabilistic sensitivity analysis in 80% of iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. However, when TMT was compared to mismatch repair IHC alone, TMT cost $182,798/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In this model of patients with stage III endometrial cancer, TMT was cost saving compared to No TMT. However, when compared to mismatch repair IHC alone, TMT was economically unfavorable.

Dostarlimab for recurrent mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with recurrent endometrial cancer treated with carboplatin and paclitaxel whose disease progresses have few effective treatment options. Based on promising clinical trial data, the anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) antibody dostarlimab was recently granted accelerated approval for endometrial cancer by the US Food and Drug Administration. We developed a decision model to examine the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab for patients with progressive/recurrent deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) endometrial cancer whose disease has progressed with first-line chemotherapy. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness study. POPULATION: Hypothetical cohort of 6000 women with progressive/recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. METHODS: The initial decision point in the Markov model was treatment with dostarlimab, pembrolizumab or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD). Model probabilities, and cost and utility values were derived with assumptions drawn from published literature. Effectiveness was estimated as average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to vary the assumptions across a range of plausible values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was the least costly strategy, at $55,732, followed by dostarlimab ($151,533) and pembrolizumab ($154,597). Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, PLD was cost-effective compared with dostarlimab, with an ICER of $331,913 per QALY gained for dostarlimab, whereas pembrolizumab was ruled out by extended dominance (less effective, more costly), compared with dostarlimab. In one-way sensitivity analyses, dostarlimab was cost-effective when its cost was reduced to $4905 (52% reduction). These results were robust in a variety of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Dostarlimab is associated with greater survival compared with other treatments for women with recurrent dMMR endometrial cancer. Although the agent is substantially more costly, dostarlimab became cost-effective when its cost was reduced to $5489 per cycle.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for patients with mismatch repair-proficient advanced endometrial cancer: A United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In 2022, the KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) study showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PL) has more benefits than traditional chemotherapy as a first-line regimen to treat patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). However, given the high cost of immuno-targeted therapy, the widespread use among patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness comparison between PL and chemotherapy. METHODS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PL versus chemotherapy over 7 years by developing a comprehensive Markov model, included 697 patients, that calculated total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The robustness of the model was evaluated by one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In addition, we also performed subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Chemotherapy yielded a mean survival of 0.705 QALYs (0.901 LYs) per patient and was associated with a mean cost of $163,777. PL was associated with an incremental cost of $38,582 and an additional 0.349 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $110,401 per QALY as compared to chemotherapy. The cost of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. At the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, approximately 79.2% of simulations show cost-effectiveness occurs in PL. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that PL was the most cost-effective regimen for patients who had previously received 1-line of therapy. CONCLUSION: For patients with pMMR aEC, the PL strategy may be the most cost-effective strategy at a WTP of $150,000 from the economic perspective of the United States.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab vs. Chemotherapy in Pretreated Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: In the international, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study 309-KEYNOTE-775 trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether LP is cost-effective compared with chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: The clinical data for this model was derived from the 309-KEYNOTE-775 trial. Costs and utilities were either derived from the standard fee database or extracted from previously published literature. A three-state Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of patients with advanced endometrial cancer. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of variables in the analysis model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed based on 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations. A subgroup analysis was performed to test whether LP is cost-effective in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease. Results: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provided an incremental 0.64 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of $241,278.18, compared with chemotherapy, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $378,251.44/QALY, which exceeded the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. While in the pMMR subgroup, the ICER increased to $413,256.68/QALY. The variance of the utility of PFS state, the cost of LP, and the utility of the progressive disease state were the most influential factors in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Under the current WTP threshold, LP is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

Treatment patterns and economic burden among cervical and endometrial cancer patients newly initiating systemic therapy.

Aim: To evaluate treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and all-cause healthcare costs among patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy. Methods: We identified patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy - a claims-based proxy for advanced disease - between 2014 and 2019, described them by line of therapy (LOT), and summarized the per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1229 patients with cervical cancer and 2659 patients with endometrial cancer, LOT1 therapies included systemic only (cervical, 50.1%; endometrial, 83.2%) and systemic with radiation therapy (cervical, 49.9%; endometrial, 16.8%). Mean PPPM total costs were: LOT1 (cervical, US$15,892; endometrial, US$11,363), LOT2 (US$20,193; US$14,019) and LOT3+ (US$16,576; US$14,645). Conclusions: Overall, patients received guideline-concordant care and experienced significant economic burden, which increased with LOT.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS), recurrent, pretreated endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP relative to doxorubicin, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent pretreated MSS EC. Published data was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and drug cost estimates were obtained using average wholesale prices. A health state utility (HSU) penalty of -0.10 was applied to the LP group to account for treatment toxicity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost/QALY. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at $100,000 per QALY saved. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost, effectiveness, and HSU penalty for LP. RESULTS: Costs of treatment with doxorubicin, PLD, and bevacizumab are $23.7 million (M), $56.9 M, and $250.8 M respectively. Cost of treatment with LP is $1.8 billion. Relative to doxorubicin, the ICERs for PLD, bevacizumab, and LP are $56,808, $345,824, and $1.6 M respectively. A sensitivity analysis varying the cost of LP shows that if the combined drug cost decreases from over $58,000 to less than $11,000 per cycle, this strategy would be cost-effective. Eliminating the HSU penalty for LP decreased the ICER $1.0 M while increasing the penalty to -0.20 increased the ICER to $3.7 M. CONCLUSIONS: LP is not cost-effective in patients with recurrent pretreated, MSS EC. A dramatic reduction in cost of LP is required for this novel strategy to be cost-effective.

Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (P/L) versus standard-of-care carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/T) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: We designed a Markov model to simulate treatment outcomes for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer patients whose tumors are either microsatellite stable (MSS) or have high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). We adopted a healthcare sector perspective for the analysis. Model inputs for costs, health utility, and clinical estimates were obtained from the literature including data from GOG0209 and KEYNOTE-146. Primary outcomes included costs of care, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The time-horizon was three years and the discount rate was 3% annually. RESULTS: In a MSS cohort, compared to C/T, first-line treatment with P/L increased treatment costs by $212,670 and decreased QALYs by 0.28 per patient. In a MSI-high cohort, compared to C/T, P/L increased costs by $313,487 and increased QALYs by 0.11 per patient, representing an ICER of $2,849,882 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found that the price of the new drugs was the most important determinant of the ICER and that the price of the new drugs would need to decrease by 85% to $2817 per cycle to reach a $150,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: In the MSS model, we found that first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer with P/L increased costs and worsened outcomes compared to C/T. In the MSI-high model, P/L improved survival and QALYs compared to C/T but was not cost-effective at the current cost of the drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy in the US for women with previously treated deficient mismatch repair or high microsatellite instability unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer.

AIMS: There is limited published evidence for the cost-effectiveness of treatments for unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer (mEC). The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously treated unresectable or mEC, in women whose tumors have deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) or high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). The analysis was carried out from a US healthcare payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime partitioned survival model comprising three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was constructed. Chemotherapy was represented by single-agent paclitaxel or doxorubicin. Overall survival, progression-free survival and time on treatment data for pembrolizumab were obtained from a Phase II clinical study that included women with previously treated dMMR/MSI-H unresectable or mEC (KEYNOTE-158, NCT02628067). Survival data for chemotherapy were obtained from a published Phase III study for previously treated advanced endometrial cancer. Costs included were drug acquisition and administration, health-state, end-of-life, and adverse event management. Costs were presented in 2019 US$. Outcomes were calculated as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE-158. Model results were tested extensively in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that pembrolizumab is a highly cost-effective treatment option when compared with chemotherapy, with estimated deterministic and probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $58,165 and $57,668 per QALY gained, respectively. Pembrolizumab was associated with a large QALY and life-year gain per person versus chemotherapy over the model time horizon (deterministic 4.68 life year gain, 3.80 QALYs), with the majority of QALYs accrued in the progression-free health state. LIMITATIONS: The key limitation of the analysis was the lack of comparative effectiveness data for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab is a highly cost-effective treatment option when compared with chemotherapy for women with previously treated dMMR/MSI-H unresectable or mEC. Results were robust to the changes in parameters and assumptions explored.

Does Early Chemotherapy Improve Survival in Advanced Endometrial Cancer?

OBJECTIVES: In endometrial cancer, the appropriate sequence of adjuvant chemotherapy (aCT) and adjuvant radiation therapy (aRT) is unclear. We aim evaluated whether early chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). METHODS: Endometrial cancer patients that received aCT and aRT were selected from the SEER-Medicare database. Early chemotherapy was defined as receiving aCT before aRT, with or without additional aCT ("sandwich" regimens). All other patients received a full course of aRT before chemotherapy with or without concurrent chemotherapy. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to assess the impact of clinical and demographic factors on OS. RESULTS: We selected 597 patients for analysis. Median age and was 72 years; 85% of patients were white. Overall, 68% of women had FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage III disease and 77% received 4 to 6 cycles of chemotherapy. Five-year OS (66.6% vs. 62.4%, P=0.46) and 5-year CSS (71.1% vs. 71.2%, P=0.88) was not significantly improved among those receiving early chemotherapy. In addition, early chemotherapy did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-1.34, P=0.53) or CSS (HR=1.21; 95% CI: 0.82-1.79, P=0.34) on multivariate analysis. Compared with 1 to 3 cycles, receiving 4 to 6 (HR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.26-0.87, P=0.02), and ≥7 cycles (HR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, P=0.02) of chemotherapy was associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: No differences in OS or CSS were noted among endometrial patients receiving early chemotherapy. However, the number of chemotherapy cycles was associated with prolonged survival.

Pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer that have failed first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We created a model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or bevacizumab for the treatment of women with recurrent endometrial cancer who have failed carboplatin and paclitaxel. Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and non-microsatellite instability-high (non-MSI-H) tumors were evaluated. We included 4400 patients in the model; 800 patients were assumed to have MSI-H tumors. Drug costs were calculated using 2016-2017 wholesale acquisition costs, and cost of Grade III-IV toxicities was estimated from clinical experience. Effectiveness was calculated as 2-year overall survival (OS). We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to determine the cost per 2-year survivor. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness to pay threshold was $100,000 per year of OS. RESULTS: The cost of therapy with PLD and bevacizumab were $33.2 million (M) and $167.9 M, respectively. The cost of pembrolizumab therapy was $318.3 M for non-MSI-H patients compared to $57.9 M for MSI-H patients. For non-MSI-H patients, bevacizumab was cost-effective relative to PLD with an ICER of $153,028, while pembrolizumab was not cost-effective relative to bevacizumab with an ICER of $341,830. For MSI-H patients, pembrolizumab was cost-effective compared to PLD with an ICER of $147,249, while bevacizumab was subjected to extended dominance. Sensitivity analysis revealed that for non-MSI-H patients, one cycle of pembrolizumab would need to cost $7253 or less to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with MSI-H recurrent endometrial cancers who have failed first-line chemotherapy, pembrolizumab is cost-effective relative to other single agent drugs. To be cost-effective in non-MSI-H patients, the cost of pembrolizumab should decrease substantially.

All-cause mortality in young women with endometrial cancer receiving progesterone therapy.

BACKGROUND: Uterine-preserving therapy with progesterone may be used in young women with endometrial cancer who desire fertility preservation. Such therapy delays definitive treatment with hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: We examined the use and safety of progestational therapy in young women with endometrial cancer. The primary outcome of the analysis was overall survival. STUDY DESIGN: We identified women ≤49 years of age with stage I endometrial cancer in the National Cancer Database from 2004 through 2014. Women treated with hormonal therapy with or without hysterectomy were compared to women treated with hysterectomy. After propensity score weighting, overall survival was examined using proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 23,231 patients, including 872 (3.8%) women treated with hormonal therapy were identified. Use of hormonal therapy was 2.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.3%) in 2004 and increased over time to 5.9% (95% confidence interval, 5.0-6.9%) by 2014 (P < .0001). Use of hormonal therapy decreased with older age, higher substage, and increasing grade. Black women were more likely to receive hormonal therapy while Medicaid recipients were less likely to receive hormonal therapy. The 5-year survival for patients treated with hormonal therapy was 96.4% (95% confidence interval, 94.3-98.0%) compared to 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 96.9-97.4%) for hysterectomy. In a multivariable model, women treated with hormonal therapy were 92% (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.19) more likely to die compared to women who underwent primary hysterectomy. When stratified by stage, hormonal therapy was associated with increased mortality in women with stage IB and I-not otherwise specified tumors but not for stage IA neoplasms. CONCLUSION: Use of progestational therapy is increasing. Its use was associated with decreased survival, particularly in women with stage IB tumors.

The assessment of overall survival (OS) after adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with malignant endometrial cancer in Poland.

OBJECTIVES: In 2013 malignant endometrial cancers have amounted to 7.3% of all cancers diagnosed among women in the report by the Polish National Cancer Registry Raw prevalence rate amounted to 28.7, whereas standardised prevalence rate 15.6 per 100 000 population. Among the causes of death, these cancers amounted to 3% and were ranked ninth on the list of the most common causes of oncologic mortality of women. In the year 2013 a total of 1243 women died of malignant endometrial cancers. A stable increase of malignant endometrial cancer incidence has been observed for 2 decades. Despite that fact, the increase of the mortality incidence is at a much lower level, which demonstrates the much higher effectiveness of the treatment of such cancers. The recording rate of the malignant endometrial cancer mortality amounts to 95%, so the presented absolute numbers are reliable. Examining the clinical stages of malignant endometrial cancers, we can establish that approx. 85% of them are diagnosed at stage I or II according to the FIGO classification. Patients with advanced stages of cancer represent less than 15%. MATERIAL AND METHODS: retrospective analysis of endometrial body cancer prevalence data for the entire population of Poland, assessment of malignant endometrial cancer prevalence in the years 2008-2015 and overall survival probability in the population of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: The number of patients with a diagnosed malignant endometrial cancer within the studied period in Poland remains on a stable level (2008 - 30.6 thousand patients, 2015 - 40.2 thousand patients). Among all listed patients with the indica-tion of C54 each year approx. 20% enters hospital treatment. System therapy with chemotherapy drugs was used in approx. 1-2% of patients treated in hospitals. The average age of the patients was 64.9 years, and the median age 65 years. The num-ber of observations was 2085, including 1088 censored observations. The average survival for the sample under study was 30.67 month (SD = ± 0.6); median survival time was 23.93 month. The number of censored observations was 1088 (52.16%). Probable survival of 1 year is achieved by 67.57% of patients, 2 years by 49.73%, 3 years by 40.68%, above 5 years 30.77%. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of endometrial cancer in Poland in the years 2008-2015 continues to grow at 5% upward trend (in Europe 3.4-5.9). In Poland in 2012, crude incidence rate for cancer of the uterus was 29.8 and did not differ significantly from the results in countries such as Finland, Slovakia, Sweden, Belgium and Bulgaria. The overall survival after adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with malignant endometrial cancer in Poland shows considerable differences depending on the region of the country.

Cutting costs and standardizing care: Once-per-cycle complete blood count monitoring may be safe for patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether frequency of complete blood count (CBC) testing during chemotherapy for gynecologic cancer impacts hospital admissions or rates of neutropenic fever. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at a single academic institution. Patients undergoing platinum-based chemotherapy for endometrial or ovarian cancer from January 2010 to December 2014 were identified from a clinical database. Patients receiving dose-dense chemotherapy or on a clinical trial were excluded. Electronic chart review collected demographic and clinical characteristics. The primary outcome was the rate of febrile neutropenia or hospital admission. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients were identified, 63 (36%) with endometrial and 111 (64%) with ovarian cancer. Fifty-four percent of patients received multiple CBC per cycle compared with 46% who only had one CBC per cycle. The majority of patients were treated with a platinum-based doublet (85%). Dose reductions, addition of granulocyte colony stimulating factor, and rates of grade 3 or 4 anemia and neutropenia were significantly associated with more frequent testing. There was no difference in rates of neutropenic fever (5.3 vs 3.8%, P = 0.45) or hospital admission (22.3 vs 21.3%, P = 0.86) for multiple versus single CBC monitoring. CONCLUSION: More frequent laboratory testing detected more cases of grade 3 or 4 hematopoietic toxicities and was associated with more interventions. There were no differences in number of hospitalizations or cases of neutropenic fever by frequency of laboratory testing, suggesting that it may be appropriate to decrease routine laboratory tests for select patients.