Assessment of Sirolimus- vs. paCLitaxEl-coated balloon angioPlasty In atherosclerotic femoropopliteal lesiOnS (ASCLEPIOS Study): preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: There appears to be an association between paclitaxel-coated devices and increased 5-year all-cause mortality. METHODS: We are conducting a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center, noninferiority study. All consecutive patients with femoropopliteal arterial disease who fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria are sequentially and consecutively assigned to either paclitaxel (Ranger, Boston Scientific) or sirolimus (MagicTouch, Concept Medical) coated balloon angioplasty treatment. The primary outcome are procedural success and primary vessel patency at index procedure. The secondary outcomes are 30-day and 12-month freedom from MAEs (amputation, death, TLR/TVR, MI, distal embolization that requires a separate intervention or hospitalization), procedural success (≤30% residual diameter stenosis or occlusion after the procedure), Rutherford category improvement (reduction ≤1 category) and ABI improvement (increase ≥0.10 from baseline). RESULTS: A total of six patients have been enrolled in the present study up to now. The mean age was 72.6 years old and five were male. All patients had angiographic evidence of isolated occlusion in the transition segment of the distal femoral superficial artery in the popliteal artery. The mean length was 109 mm. Three patients were treated by sirolimus-coated (group A) and three by paclitaxel coated balloon angioplasty (group B). The primary patency and procedural success was in two of three and three of three patients, for group A and B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results show safety and feasibility of the Sirolimus-coated balloon angioplasty. Further investigation and increase of sample size will allow for more sustained conclusions regarding patency and procedural success of this type of balloons for the endovascular treatment of peripheral arterial disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for treatment of US patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the United States (US) healthcare payers perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model over a 30-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus placebo based on clinical data from the KEYNOTE-826 phase 3 randomized trial. Costs and health state utilities were obtained from literature and publicly available databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For the Intention-to-Treat patients, pembrolizumab was associated with an additional 0.74 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of $182,271 when compared with placebo. The ICER was $247,663/QALY. For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥ 1 and 10, the ICER was $253,322/QALY and $214,212/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that pembrolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of pembrolizumab being cost-effective was zero at the current willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. The price of pembrolizumab had to reduce at least to $28.336 (55.8% of the current price) for it to be cost-effective in a 50% of chance. CONCLUSION: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is costly and might not be cost-effective for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer at the current price in the US.

Cervical cancer treatment in Rwanda: Resource-driven adaptations, quality indicators, and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Most cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, yet clinical research from these contexts is significantly underrepresented. We aimed to describe the treatment quality, resource-driven adaptations, and outcomes of cervical cancer patients in Rwanda. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer enrolled between April 2016 and June 2018. Data were abstracted from medical records and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier methods, and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients were included; median age 54 years, 21% HIV-infected. A majority (55%) had stage III or IV disease. Thirty-four early-stage patients underwent radical hysterectomy. Of 254 patients added to a waiting list for chemoradiation, 114 ultimately received chemoradiation. Of these, 30 (26%) received upfront chemoradiation after median 126 days from diagnosis, and 83 (73%) received carboplatin/paclitaxel while waiting, with a median 56 days from diagnosis to chemotherapy and 207 days to chemoradiation. There was no survival difference between the upfront chemoradiation and prior chemotherapy subgroups. Most chemotherapy recipients (77%) reported improvement in symptoms. Three-year event-free survival was 90% with radical hysterectomy (95% CI 72-97%), 66% with chemoradiation (95% CI 55-75%), and 12% with chemotherapy only (95% CI 6-20%). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-modality treatment of cervical cancer is effective in low resource settings through coordinated care and pragmatic approaches. Our data support a role for temporizing chemotherapy if delays to chemoradiation are anticipated. Sustainable access to gynecologic oncology surgery and expanded access to radiotherapy are urgently needed.

Addressing the issue of bias in observational studies: Using instrumental variables and a quasi-randomization trial in an ESME research project.

PURPOSE: Observational studies using routinely collected data are faced with a number of potential shortcomings that can bias their results. Many methods rely on controlling for measured and unmeasured confounders. In this work, we investigate the use of instrumental variables (IV) and quasi-trial analysis to control for unmeasured confounders in the context of a study based on the retrospective Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) database, which compared overall survival (OS) with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or paclitaxel alone as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Causal interpretations and estimates can be made from observation data using IV and quasi-trial analysis. Quasi-trial analysis has the same conceptual basis as IV, however, instead of using IV in the analysis, a "superficial" or "pseudo" randomized trial is used in a Cox model. For instance, in a multicenter trial, instead of using the treatment variable, quasi-trial analysis can consider the treatment preference in each center, which can be informative, and then comparisons of results between centers or clinicians can be informative. RESULTS: In the original analysis, the OS adjusted for major factors was significantly longer with paclitaxel and bevacizumab than with paclitaxel alone. Using the center-treatment preference as an instrument yielded to concordant results. For the quasi-trial analysis, a Cox model was used, adjusted on all factors initially used. The results consolidate those obtained with a conventional multivariate Cox model. CONCLUSION: Unmeasured confounding is a major concern in observational studies, and IV or quasi-trial analysis can be helpful to complement analysis of studies of this nature.

The cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in first-line for metastatic triple negative breast cancer is heavily linked to PD-L1 level.

The present analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of atezolizumab as first-line treatment in triple negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) was considered. Nine hundred and two patients were included. Differences in costs between the 2 arms (atezolizumab plus nabpaclitaxel versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel) was 17 398 €, with a cost of 7564 €per month of OS-gain in the overall population and 2485 €per month of OS-gain in PD-L1-positive (≥1) population. Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the OS, atezolizumab could be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment for triple-negative mBC only in PD-L1-positive population, but a reduction of costs is mandatory.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced PD-L1 Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Japan.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atezolizumab is an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody that shows good safety and efficacy for patients with PD-L1-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The cost of atezolizumab therapy is expensive, and its economic burden is an important problem. In this study, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel therapy (AnP) compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (nP) for PD-L1-positive TNBC under Japanese medical conditions and environments using a Markov model. METHODS: The medical information was collected from data published by the IMpassion130 trial. A Markov model was established to simulate the number of patients in each disease state after AnP or nP therapy during each time period. As indices for cost effectiveness, total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to assess the uncertainty of the model using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations with difference parameters. RESULTS: The QALYs for AnP treatment were longer than for nP treatment (1.12 vs 0.82 QALYs), but the total cost of AnP treatment was more expensive than that of nP treatment (¥11,070,143 vs ¥2,056,164). The ICER values comparing AnP treatment with nP treatment were ¥30,208,143/QALY. The ICER/QALY was more expensive than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of ¥15,000,000 per QALY. To achieve a 50% cost-effective probability with a WTP threshold, the price of the atezolizumab should be reduced by 55.1%. CONCLUSIONS: AnP was not cost effective compared to nP for PD-L1-positive inoperable TNBC under the Japanese condition.

First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the IMpower130 clinical trial. Drug costs and health state utility were obtained from the literature. Outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.Results: When compared to chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy provides an additional 0.34 LY and 0.19 QALY, and has an ICER of $180,560.15 per additional LY gained and that of $325,328.71 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in atezolizumab cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values of $30,828 per QALY. If the WTP threshold increased to $325,000 per QALY, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy has a 50% chance to be cost-effective.Conclusions: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, atezolizumab combination is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Trastuzumab with carboplatin/paclitaxel for treatment of advanced stage and recurrent uterine papillary serous carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) is a variant of endometrial cancer that is aggressive and associated with poor outcomes. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of carboplatin/paclitaxel alone versus carboplatin/paclitaxel with trastuzumab among patients with Her2/neu-positive advanced or recurrent UPSC. METHODS: We designed a Markov model in TreeAge Pro 2019 software to simulate management of a theoretical cohort of 4000 patients with Her2/neu-positive advanced or recurrent uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) followed for four years. In the carboplatin/paclitaxel with trastuzumab strategy, we included the cost of testing for Her2/neu status. We obtained all model inputs from the literature and a societal perspective was assumed. Outcomes included progression-free survival, progression, UPSC-specific mortality, cost, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The intervention was considered cost effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In our theoretical cohort of 4000 women, treatment with the addition of trastuzumab resulted in 637 fewer deaths and 627 fewer cases of progression compared with treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone. Treatment with trastuzumab was associated with an additional cost of $144,335,895, but was associated with an increase of 2065 QALYs. The ICER was $69,903 per QALY, which was below our willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that this treatment strategy was cost-effective until the cost of 6 months of treatment surpassed $38,505 (baseline input: $27,562). CONCLUSION: We found that the addition of trastuzumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel was a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with advanced/recurrent Her2/neu-positive UPSC.

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.

Treatment patterns in pancreatic cancer patients based on a hospital claims database in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer treatment is evolving, but few studies have examined a nationwide trend in the treatment patterns. The purpose of this study was to clarify real-world treatment patterns for pancreatic cancer in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective study examined the treatment patterns among 68 479 patients, who had pancreatic cancer diagnosis in Medical Data Vision claims database from 2010 to 2018. We extracted relevant data on treatment options, including chemotherapy, surgery and their combination. For patients who had undergone chemotherapy, we sought to analyse the use of different chemotherapy regimens. In addition, we examined the trend in treatment patterns by age group (<59, 60-69, 70-79, ≥80). RESULTS: The trend in treatment options of pancreatic cancer remained stable from 2010 to 2018, with chemotherapy being the most common therapeutic option and surgery performed in approximately half that of chemotherapy. On the other hand, the use of chemotherapy regimen had changed during the same period. Although gemcitabine was the most commonly administrated single-agent regimen in 2010, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel was the most frequently used therapeutic agent in 2018. In the older age groups (age ≥80), the majority of patients was untreated (supposedly received supportive care), and the use of conventional regimens such as gemcitabine or S-1 was common among those undergoing chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Although chemotherapy has been the main treatment option for pancreatic cancer, the regimens of choice have increased significantly during the last decade. With accumulating evidence on combination chemotherapy, treatment options may further evolve in the future.

Important considerations for trials for peripheral arterial disease: Lessons learned from the paclitaxel mortality signal: A report on behalf of the registry assessment for peripheral interventional Devices (RAPID) Paclitaxel Pathways Program.

The Registry Assessment of Peripheral Devices (RAPID) convened a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders including clinicians, academicians, regulators and industry representatives to conduct an in-depth review of limitations associated with the data available to assess the paclitaxel mortality signal. Available studies were evaluated to identify strengths and limitations in the study design and data quality, which were translated to lessons learned to help guide the design, execution, and analyses of future studies. We suggest numerous actionable responses, such as the development and use of harmonized data points and outcomes in a consensus lean case report form. We advocate for reduction in missing data and efficient means for accrual of larger sample sizes in Peripheral arterial disease studies or use of supplemental datasets. Efforts to share lessons learned and working collaboratively to address such issues may improve future data in this device area and ultimately benefit patients. Condensed Abstract: Data sources evaluating paclitaxel-coated devices were evaluated to identify strengths and limitations in the study design and data quality, which were translated to lessons learned to help guide the design, execution, and analyses of future studies. We suggest numerous actionable responses, which we believe may improve future data in this device area and ultimately benefit patients.

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.

Central radiology assessment of the randomized phase III open-label OVHIPEC-1 trial in ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improved investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer in the phase III OVHIPEC-1 trial. We analyzed whether an open-label design affected the results of the trial by central blinded assessment of recurrence-free survival, and tested whether HIPEC specifically targets the peritoneal surface by analyzing the site of disease recurrence. METHODS: OVHIPEC-1 was an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial that randomized 245 patients after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to interval cytoreduction with or without HIPEC using cisplatin (100 mg/m2). Patients received three additional cycles of chemotherapy after surgery. Computed tomography (CT) scans and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125) measurements were performed during chemotherapy, and during follow-up. Two expert radiologists reviewed all available CT scans. They were blinded for treatment allocation and clinical outcome. Central revision included Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 measurements and peritoneal cancer index scorings at baseline, during treatment, and during follow-up. Time to centrally-revised recurrence was compared between study arms using Cox proportional hazard models. Subdistribution models compared time to peritoneal recurrence between arms, accounting for competing risks. RESULTS: CT scans for central revision were available for 231 patients (94%) during neoadjuvant treatment and 212 patients (87%) during follow-up. Centrally-assessed median recurrence-free survival was 9.9 months in the surgery group and 13.2 months in the surgery+HIPEC group (HR for disease recurrence or death 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94; p=0.015). The improved recurrence-free survival and overall survival associated with HIPEC were irrespective of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and baseline peritoneal cancer index. Cumulative incidence of peritoneal recurrence was lower after surgery+HIPEC, but there was no difference in extraperitoneal recurrences. CONCLUSION: Centrally-assessed recurrence-free survival analysis confirms the benefit of adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with stage III ovarian cancer, with fewer peritoneal recurrences. These results rule out radiological bias caused by the open-label nature of the study.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel improved progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. However, estimating the economy of atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel is urgent on account of the high cost of atezolizumab. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus carboplatin/nab- paclitaxel for untreated advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer from the United States payer perspective. Setting This study was based on randomized clinical trial data from the IMpower130 (NCT02367781) published in Lancet Oncology (May 2019). Method A Markov model was constructed to estimate the health expenditure on atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treatment. Drug costs were collected from Red Book Wholesale Acquisition Cost, and health state utility values were obtained from the literature. Uncertainty was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measure The main outcomes were cost, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results Over a 10-year horizon, atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel treatment was associated with an expected 1.76 life years and 0.99 quality-adjusted life years compared to the 1.21 life years and 0.67 quality-adjusted life years for carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel alone. Compared to carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel, atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel produced an incremental cost of $105,617. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $333,199 per quality-adjusted life year, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $180,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The price of atezolizumab and utility values were the parameters that greatly impacted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel exhibited 98.6% probability of being a cost-effective treatment option compared to atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel at a willingness-to-pay of $180,000 per quality-adjusted life year. However, reducing atezolizumab acquisition cost by 43.4% could make atezolizumab/carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel more cost-effective than carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel. Conclusion Adding atezolizumab to carboplatin/nab-paclitaxel was not cost-effective for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in the base-case scenario. Decreasing atezolizumab acquisition cost might enhance the cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs (in Singapore dollars, S$) were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties. RESULTS: Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at S$67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the ICERs remained high even under extremely favourable assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent good value for money for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

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 Bevacizumab plus Paclitaxel versus Bevacizumab plus Capecitabine for HER2-Negative Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to estimate two protocols for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer patients, bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel versus bevacizumab combined with capecitabine, from the economic view. METHODS: The process of HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer treated with bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel or bevaciz-umab combined with capecitabine made up the decision model in our analysis. The primary objective was to show the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The critical parameters and the robustness of the model on the results of the analysis were assessed by univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: In the analysis, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) increased by 0.4 with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine, and incremental cost of USD 4,340.46. Therefore, the ICER was USD 27,252.875. The ICER exceeded the commonly accepted willingness to pay on the recommendation of the World Health Organization, which is defined as 3 times of the gross domestic product per capita of China in the model (USD 25,840.88 per QALY). On univariate analysis, it is found that the most significant affecting factor is the cost of progression-free survival state in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group. Besides, bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had a 47.8% probability of being cost-effective versus bevacizu-mab plus capecitabine according to probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the analysis, bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea in a sample of gynaecological cancer patients: assessment issues and personal risk factors evaluation.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) is a relevant problem for gynaecological cancer patients. The evaluation of CIN is a key aspect in its management, along with the identification of associated risk factors. The objective of the study was to compare different measurements of nausea and to investigate personal risk factors in CIN development. METHOD: Eighty-one women treated for gynaecological cancers took part. The presence of CIN was evaluated using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) and a patient's report to clinicians at the subsequent chemotherapy cycle. Personal risk factors were assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report questionnaire. RESULTS: The study shows that the agreement between patients' assessment of CIN with MAT and what they referred to clinicians was only moderate for acute nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.55; p < 0.001), while good for delayed nausea (Cohen's Kappa = 0.68; p < 0.001). At multiple logistic regression analysis, younger age, anticipatory nausea, patient medium-high expectations of CIN, and parity emerged as risk factors for the development of acute nausea (p = 0.0087, 0.0080, 0.0122 and 0.0021, respectively). Patient medium-high expectations of CIN and being single resulted to be risk factors for delayed nausea (p = 0.0397 and 0.0024, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that personal factors contribute to individual differences in the development of CIN; moreover, we highlight the importance of CIN evaluation by clinicians, underlining the need to use reliable instruments.

First-Line Treatment With Atezolizumab Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (IMpassion130) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel (AnP) against nab-paclitaxel alone as the first-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer in developed and developing countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using IMpassion130 data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AnP over a lifetime from the US health care payer and Chinese health care system perspective. Model inputs were derived from IMpassion130 and published literature. The primary outcomes of the model were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the projected mean outcome was better with AnP (1.41 QALYs) than with nab-paclitaxel alone (0.99 QALYs). Similar results were obtained for the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive population, with the obtained mean outcomes of 1.66 and 0.88 QALYs, respectively. For the Unites States, the ICER values comparing AnP with nab-paclitaxel were US$331,996.89 and US$229,359.88 per QALY gained for the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations, respectively. For China, the ICER values were US$106,339.26 and US$72,971.88 per QALY gained for the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations, respectively. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the price of atezolizumab was the most influential factor in our study. AnP had 0% cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$150,000/QALY in the United States and US$29,383/QALY in China. CONCLUSION: AnP is not a cost-effective choice as the first-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer in the United States and China.