Assessing the fiscal consequences of novel and existing treatments for triple negative breast cancer in Switzerland by applying a government perspective framework.

BACKGROUND: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that can impact patients' employment and workforce participation. This study estimates how the employment effects of TNBC impact government tax revenue and public benefits expenditure in Switzerland, representing the fiscal burden of disease (FBoD), and likely consequences of introducing new treatment options. METHODS: A four-state cohort model was used to calculate fiscal effects for two treatments: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy (P + C→P) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (C). Lifetime present values of tax revenue, social benefit payments, and healthcare costs were calculated for the average population and those undergoing treatment to assess the FBoD. RESULTS: An average TNBC patient treated with C and P + C→P is expected to generate CHF128,999 and CHF97,008 less tax than the average population, respectively, and require increased social benefit payments. Compared to C, 75% of the incremental healthcare costs of P + C→P are estimated to be offset through tax revenue gains. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that 75% of the additional costs of a new TNBC treatment option can be offset by gains in tax revenue. Fiscal analysis can be a useful tool to complement existing methods for evaluating new treatments.

Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives. METHODS: Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and economic-specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible. RESULTS: The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality-adjusted life-year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high-risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high-quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021. Exposures: Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY. Results: During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Cost drivers of locally advanced rectal cancer treatment-An analysis of a leading healthcare insurer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic burden of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) treatment from a society perspective through analysis of health insurance-derived data of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) patients. METHODS: Retrospective cost analysis of patients undergoing rectal resection within a multimodal (neoadjuvant chemoradiation + adjuvant chemotherapy) treatment strategy between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2018, using the claims OptumLabs Data Warehouse database. RESULTS: In total, 1738 (935 commercial and 803 MA) patients were included. Overall treatment costs totaled $230,881,746 (on average $183 653 ± 82 384 per commercially insured and $73 681 ± 32 917 per MA patient). Cost distribution according to category (commercially insured patients) was: 29.92% related to outpatient care (follow-up visits/diagnostics), radiotherapy: 21.83%, index resection: 20.62%, chemotherapy: 17.44%, surgical inpatient: 6.32%, medical inpatient: 3.28%, emergency room: 0.58%. Relative cost distribution of the index resection itself differed marginally between the three approaches and was 21.49% for open, 19.30% for laparoscopic, and 20.93% for robotic surgery. Relative cost distributions of neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and outpatient treatments remained unchanged, independently of the surgical approach. This representation was similar in MA patients. CONCLUSION: Index-surgery related costs were outweighed by costs related to oncological and outpatient workup/follow-up treatments independently of both surgical approach and insurance type.

Social and Clinical Correlates of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Medicare Beneficiaries With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer From 2004-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To assess social and clinical correlates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of SEER-Medicare (2004-2015) patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated by radical cystectomy were stratified into 3-groups: standard of care NAC (cisplatin-based combination), non-standard of care NAC, and upfront cystectomy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess social, demographic and clinical correlates of each treatment category. Survival analyses were performed to compare propensity matched treatment groups. RESULTS: In total, 6214 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 21 [IQR 7-54] months. NAC utilization increased from 10.7% to 39.1%, between 2004 and 2015, largely due to increased use of standard of care regimens. The most commonly used nonstandard regimen was gemcitabine/carboplatin (50.2%). Older age, Hispanic and Black race, lower socioeconomic status, and contraindications to cisplatin were associated with increased odds of receiving nonstandard of care NAC compared to standard of care. Standard of care NAC was associated with improved overall survival HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76, 0.94) and HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63, 0.89) compared to both upfront cystectomy and nonstandard of care NAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: NAC utilization has increased to nearly 40%; however, the use of non-standard of care NAC regimen have persisted (~8%). Cisplatin-ineligibility, older age, race/ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic status were correlated with nonstandard of care NAC, which provided no clinical benefit at the risk of potential harm. In accordance with current clinical guidelines, cisplatin-ineligible patients should be considered for timely upfront cystectomy or novel clinical trials.

Pathologic response at the epicenter of the treatment decision-making process in Human Epidermal Receptor-Type 2 overexpressing (Her2+) Early Breast Cancer (EBC): Challenges and opportunities for financially-constrained healthcare systems.

After more than two decades of intensive research, tremendous progress has been achieved in the management of Human Epidermal Receptor-2 overexpressing (Her2+) Early Breast Cancer (EBC). In the latest years, major clinical trials have explored the neoadjuvant scenario, in addition to the prognostic role of pathologic complete response (pCR) and the possibility of a 'tumor biology-driven' patient selection provided by the assessment pathologic response. However, the introduction of new agents has been a major burden for financially-constrained healthcare systems-which includes those from most emerging markets (currently representing 85% of the world population) but also, to some extent, public systems from welfare states. This manuscript addresses evidence-based opportunities to promote a more rational utilization of the available resources in Her2+ EBC, in addition to areas of interest for future research in cost-efficiency.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Women With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer.

Importance: The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed. Objective: To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020. Exposure: There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative. Results: In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.

Nationwide claims database analysis of treatment patterns, costs and survival of Japanese patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Limited data are available regarding treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), treatment costs and clinical outcomes for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Japan. This retrospective database study analyzed the Medical Data Vision database for DLBCL patients who received treatment during the identification period from October 1 2008 to December 31 2017. Among 6,965 eligible DLBCL patients, 5,541 patients (79.6%) received first-line (1L) rituximab (R)-based therapy, and then were gradually switched to chemotherapy without R in subsequent lines of therapy. In each treatment regimen, 1L treatment cost was the highest among all lines of therapy. The major cost drivers i.e. total direct medical costs until death or censoring across all regimens and lines of therapy were from the 1L regimen and inpatient costs. During the follow-up period, DLBCL patients who received a 1L R-CHOP regimen achieved the highest survival rate and longest time-to-next-treatment, with a relatively low mean treatment cost due to lower inpatient healthcare resource utilization and fewer lines of therapy compared to other 1L regimens. Our retrospective analysis of clinical practices in Japanese DLBCL patients demonstrated that 1L treatment and inpatient costs were major cost contributors and that the use of 1L R-CHOP was associated with better clinical outcomes at a relatively low mean treatment cost.

Development of a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There has been no comprehensive study determining the financial burden of breast cancer in the South African (SA) public sector. OBJECTIVES: To develop a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy per episode of care and to quantify the associated costs relating to chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital (GSH), a government hospital in SA. These costs included costs associated with the management of adverse events arising from chemotherapy. METHODS: Retrospective patient-level data were collected for 200 patients from electronic databases and patient folders between 2013 and 2015. Direct medical costs were determined from the health funder's perspective. The information collected was categorised into the following cost components: chemotherapy medicines, support medicines, administration of chemotherapy, laboratory tests, radiology scans and imaging, doctor consultations and adverse events. Time-and-motion studies were conducted on a set of new patients and the data obtained were used for the study sample of 200 patients. All the above costs were used to determine the cost of chemotherapy per episode of care. The episode of care was defined as the care provided from 2 months prior to the date of commencing chemotherapy (pre-chemotherapy phase), during chemotherapy (treatment phase) and until 6 months after the date when the last cycle of chemotherapy was administered (follow-up phase). RESULTS: A method was developed to determine the episode-of-care costs for breast cancer at GSH. The total direct medical cost for treatment of breast cancer at GSH for 200 patients was ZAR3 154 877, and the average episode-of-care cost per patient was ZAR15 774. The average cost of management of adverse events arising from the various treatment modalities was ZAR13 133 per patient. It was found that the cost of treating a patient with adverse events was 1.8 times higher than the cost of treating a patient without adverse events. Of the patients, 86.5% managed to complete their prescribed chemotherapy treatment cycles, and the average cost of treatment of these patients was 1.3 times more than the average cost for patients who could not complete their treatment, based on the number of treatment cycles received. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive method to determine the costs associated with breast cancer management per episode of care was developed, and costs were quantified at GSH according to the treatment protocol used at the hospital.

Avoidance of Overtreatment of Rectal Cancer by Selective Chemoradiotherapy: Results of the Optimized Surgery and MRI-Based Multimodal Therapy Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with rectal cancer carries a high risk of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to examine the selective application of nCRT based on patient risk profile, as determined by MRI, to find the optimal range between undertreatment and overtreatment. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective multicenter observational study, nCRT before total mesorectal excision (TME) was indicated in high-risk patients with involved or threatened mesorectal fascia (≤1 mm), or cT4 or cT3 carcinomas of the lower rectal third. All other patients received primary surgery. RESULTS: Of the 1,093 patients, 878 (80.3%) were treated according to the protocol, 526 patients (59.9%) underwent primary surgery, and 352 patients (40.1%) underwent nCRT followed by surgery. The 3-year locoregional recurrence (LR) rate was 3.1%. Of 604 patients with clinical stages II and III, 267 (44.2%) had primary surgery; 337 (55.8%) received nCRT followed by TME. The 3-year LR rate was 3.9%, without significant differences between groups. In patients with clinical stages II and III who underwent primary surgery, 27.3% were diagnosed with pathological stage I. CONCLUSIONS: The results justify the restriction of nCRT to high-risk patients with rectal cancer classified by pretreatment MRI. Provided that a high-quality MRI diagnosis, TME surgery, and standardized examination of the resected specimen are performed, nCRT, with its adverse effects, costs, and treatment time can be avoided in more than 40% of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer with minimal risk of undertreatment. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT325649).

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for HER2-positive breast cancer: cost-effectiveness and quality of life outcomes.

PURPOSE: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with less recurrence and improved clinical outcomes compared to having residual cancer at surgery. However, recent data have demonstrated favorable outcomes for patients with residual HER2-positive cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1). Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal chemotherapy/anti-HER2 treatment strategy. METHODS: We created a decision-analytic model for patients with stage II-III HER2-positive cancer that incorporated utilities based on toxicity and recurrence. We separately modeled hormone receptor-negative (HR-) and positive (HR+) disease and calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs through 5 years. Simulated patients received one of the following neoadjuvant treatments: three 'intensive' regimens (TCHP: docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, pertuzumab; THP + AC: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab then doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; THP: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab) and two 'de-escalated' regimens (TH: taxol, trastuzumab; TDM-1) followed by adjuvant treatment based on pathologic response. RESULTS: Among 'intensive' neoadjuvant strategies, treatment with THP was more effective and less costly than TCHP or THP + AC. When 'de-escalated' strategies were included, TH became the most cost-effective. For HR-negative cancer, TH had 0.003 fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than THP but was less costly by $55,831, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over $18M/QALY for THP, well above any threshold. For HR-positive cancer, neoadjuvant TH dominated the THP strategy. CONCLUSION: An adaptive-treatment strategy beginning with neoadjuvant THP or TH followed by tailoring post-operative therapy reduces treatment costs, and spares toxicity compared to more intensive chemotherapy regimens for women with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality-Adjusted Survival of Watch and Wait After Complete Response to Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. There is interest in deescalating local therapy after a clinical complete response to CRT. We hypothesized that a watch-and-wait (WW) strategy offers comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and reduced cost compared with upfront TME. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to compare WW, low anterior resection, and abdominoperineal resection for patients achieving a clinical complete response to CRT. Rates of local regrowth, pelvic recurrence, and distant metastasis were derived from series comparing WW with TME after pathologic complete response. Lifetime incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated between strategies, and sensitivity analyses were performed to study model uncertainty. RESULTS: The base case 5-year cancer-specific survival was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 91.5% to 94.9%) on a WW program compared with 95.9% (95% CI = 93.6% to 97.4%) after upfront TME. WW was dominant relative to low anterior resection, with cost savings of $28 500 (95% CI = $22 200 to $39 000) and incremental QALY of 0.527 (95% CI = 0.138 to 1.125). WW was also dominant relative to abdominoperineal resection, with a cost savings of $32 100 (95% CI = $21 800 to $49 200) and incremental QALY of 0.601 (95% CI = 0.213 to 1.208). WW remained dominant in sensitivity analysis unless the rate of surgical salvage fell to 73.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Using current multi-institutional recurrence estimates, we observed comparable cancer-specific survival, superior quality-adjusted survival, and decreased costs with WW compared with upfront TME. Upfront TME was preferred when surgical salvage rates were low.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on the NEOCRTEC5010 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The phase 3 NEOCRTEC5010 trial demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) plus surgery for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) had significantly greater efficacy than surgery alone did, but at the same time, the addition of NCRT places an economic burden on patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of NCRT followed by surgery based on the NEOCRTEC5010 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-state Markov model (disease-free survival, relapse and death) based on data from the NEOCRTEC5010 trial was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NCRT plus surgery versus surgery alone for ESCC. The model evaluates the outcomes from the perspective of Chinese society. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the ICER in terms of 2019 US$ per QALY gained, were calculated. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with surgery alone, NCRT plus surgery increased costs by $14933.57, while gaining 3.08 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $4848.56 per QALY. The ICER was far below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($26,157 per QALY). The duration of disease-free survival (DFS) for the group that received NCRT was the crucial factor in determining the ICER. CONCLUSION: Compared with surgery alone, NCRT followed by surgery for locally advanced ESCC can be cost-effective because of significant clinical benefits.

The Financial Impact of Fractionation Scheme and Treatment Planning Method for Rectal Cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were found to have equivalent outcomes in 3 randomized trials. SCR has not been widely adopted in the United States (US). Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning is standard, whereas intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is controversial. In this study, we assessed the economic impact of fractionation scheme and planning method for payers in the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of radiotherapy for LARC in the US annually. The national annual target population was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Radiotherapy costs were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. RESULTS: We estimate that 12,945 patients with LARC are treated with radiotherapy annually in the US. The cost of CRT with 3D or IMRT is US $15,882 and $23,745 per patient, respectively. With SCR, the cost with 3D or IMRT is $5,458 and $7,323 per patient, respectively. The use of SCR would lead to 53% to 77% annual savings of $106,168,871 to $232,105,727 compared with CRT. IMRT increases the total cost of treatment by 34% to 50%, and if adopted widely, would lead to an excess cost of $24,152,134 and $101,784,723 annually with SCR and CRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SCR may have the potential to save approximately US $106 to t232 million annually in the US, likely without impacting outcomes. Lack of evidence showing benefit with costly IMRT should limit its use to clinical trials. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement.

Can Biomarkers Guide the Use of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in T2 Bladder Cancer?

Current guidelines recommend cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy as the preferred treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nevertheless, for multiple reasons compliance with this guideline recommendation is low. This is particularly evident in clinical T2 bladder cancer, where controversy exists regarding the role of proceeding with radical cystectomy alone. Novel biomarkers such as molecular phenotype and DNA damage repair and response gene alterations may be able to predict who will respond to cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This clinical problem is discussed, and a recommendation is made given the current state of the art. PATIENT SUMMARY: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In the future, perhaps validated biomarkers may predict who should and should not receive this treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Followed by Radical Resection Versus Conventional Therapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Definitive surgery with total mesorectal excision is the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. Multimodality therapy improves long-term survival. Current standards advise neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Nationally, compliance with adjuvant chemotherapy is only 32%. New research evaluates the effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy: complete chemotherapy and chemoradiation before surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to determine the favored treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer by comparing the cost-effectiveness of total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. DESIGN: Decision analytical modeling using long-term costs and 5-year disease-free survival was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness after total neoadjuvant therapy and the current standard of care. Sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in model parameters. SETTINGS: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services billing data perspective was adopted and outcomes modeled according to local and national databases and literature consensus. PATIENTS: Adult patients with stage II or III rectal cancer were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness in disease-free life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit were determined over a 5-year posttreatment period. The favored strategy was determined based on cost-effectiveness and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness for total neoadjuvant therapy was 40,708 $/life-year, and, for conventional therapy, cost-effectiveness was 44,248 $/life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that, for an estimated total neoadjuvant therapy completion rate of 90%, total neoadjuvant therapy would remain the dominant strategy for any adjuvant chemotherapy completion rate of less than 93%. LIMITATIONS: The samples used to calculate completion rates are small, and survival probabilities are based on existing literature, local database values, and consensus estimates. The model encompasses a 5-year time period from diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis shows that a strategy of total neoadjuvant therapy followed by radical surgery is favored over the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Sensitivity analysis shows that a low rate of adjuvant chemotherapy administration plays a key role in decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A942.

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751. CONCLUSION: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.