Cabazitaxel schedules in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a review.

Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) is the standard second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel. It is associated with a risk of neutropenic complications, which may be a barrier to its use in daily clinical practice, particularly in frail elderly patients. Here the authors reviewed key studies conducted with cabazitaxel (TROPIC, PROSELICA, AFFINITY, CARD and the European compassionate use program) and pilot studies with adapted schedules. Based on this review, the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor from cycle 1 appears crucial to maximize the benefit-risk ratio of cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Preliminary data with alternative schedules look promising, especially for frail patients. Results of the ongoing Phase III CABASTY trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961257) are awaited.

Significantly Minimizing Drug Wastage and the Cost of Cabazitaxel Used to Treat Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Cabazitaxel is used to treat patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. It is prepackaged in 60 mg single-dose vials, a quantity much higher than the average prescribed dose, which leads to, substantial drug wastage (DW) and associated costs. To minimize DW we implemented a cost-saving, cohorting strategy where multiple patients scheduled to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 20mg/m2 every 3 wks) were cohorted and treated on a single weekday whenever possible. Excess drug from each vial was then saved and used for subsequent patients treated on the same day. The drug cost with cohorting was calculated from the actual number of vials used, and the drug cost without cohorting was estimated by assumingthat one vial was used per treatment. The cost of DW was determined based on the amount of drug that was discarded. All cost calculations also accounted for the discount incentives offered by Sanofi-Aventis. Over a 3-yr period, 74 patients received 402 treatments of cabazitaxel. Multiple patients were treated on 67.4% of the treatment days, and grouping of three patients on one day saved one vial. The estimated total drug cost saved was $394 536 CAD (21.1%). Pending further studies on safety and efficacy, this strategy could potentially be adopted to mitigate DW for cabazitaxel and similarly for other oncology drugs. This would significantly decrease the overall financial burden on patients, institutions, and stakeholders. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cabazitaxel chemotherapy is associated with substantial drug wastage and associated costs. By cohorting patients scheduled to receive cabazitaxel on a single weekday, the total drug cost was decreased by $394 536 CAD (21.1%) over a 3-yr period. Similar strategies could be considered to overcome the prohibitory costs associated with drug wastage for cabazitaxel and other cancer drugs.

High-effective biosynthesis of baccatin â ¢ by using the alternative acetyl substrate, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine.

AIMS: Paclitaxel is a type of broad-spectrum anticancer drug in short supply. The price of acetyl-CoA (17 709 677·4 USD mol-1 ), which is the acetyl group donor for the enzymatic synthesis of the intermediate, baccatin Ⅲ, is still the bottleneck of the mass production of paclitaxel. This study reports a novel acetyl group donor, which could substantially reduce the cost of production. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, a substrate spectrum with 14 kinds of representative acetyl-donor substitutes predicted by computer-aided methods was tested in a 10-deacetylbaccatin Ⅲ-10-O-acetyltransferase (DBAT) heterogeneous-expressed open-whole-cell catalytic system. The results of computer prediction and experimental analysis revealed the rule of the acetyl-donor compounds based on this substrate spectrum. N-acetyl-d-glucosamine (30·95 USD mol-1 , about 572 202-fold cheaper than acetyl-CoA) is selected as a suitable substitute under the rule. The yield when using N-acetyl-d-glucosamine as acetyl donor in open-whole-cell catalytic system was 2·13-fold of that when using acetyl-CoA. In the in vivo system, the yield increased 24·17%, which may indicate its cooperation with acetyl-CoA. CONCLUSION: The success of open-whole-cell synthesis and in vivo synthesis of baccatin Ⅲ by adding N-acetyl-d-glucosamine as acetyl substrate demonstrates that it is a useful substrate to improve the yield of baccatin Ⅲ. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: All these findings provided a potential acetyl-donor substitute for acetyl-CoA, as well as a low cost and efficient method of preparing paclitaxel through baccatin Ⅲ semi-synthesis.

Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone, cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance.

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10-20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5 years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI + PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB + PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance. Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI + PRD, CAB + PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019 US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI + PRD, 16.2% for CAB + PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5 years were 0.51% for ABI + PRD, 0.27% for CAB + PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI + PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB + PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI + PRD, $85,337 for CAB + PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB + PRD and ENZ dominated ABI + PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB + PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB + PRD. Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI + PRD and CAB + PRD, at a lower cost than ABI + PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB + PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.

Bio-production of Baccatin III, an Important Precursor of Paclitaxel by a Cost-Effective Approach.

Natural production of anti-cancer drug taxol from Taxus has proved to be environmentally unsustainable and economically unfeasible. Currently, bioengineering the biosynthetic pathway of taxol is an attractive alternative production approach. 10-deacetylbaccatin III-10-O-acetyl transferase (DBAT) was previously characterized as an acyltransferase, using 10-deacetylbaccatin III (10-DAB) and acetyl CoA as natural substrates, to form baccatin III in the taxol biosynthesis. Here, we report that other than the natural acetyl CoA (Ac-CoA) substrate, DBAT can also utilize vinyl acetate (VA), which is commercially available at very low cost, acylate quickly and irreversibly, as acetyl donor in the acyl transfer reaction to produce baccatin III. Furthermore, mutants were prepared via a semi-rational design in this work. A double mutant, I43S/D390R was constructed to combine the positive effects of the different single mutations on catalytic activity, and its catalytic efficiency towards 10-DAB and VA was successfully improved by 3.30-fold, compared to that of wild-type DBAT, while 2.99-fold higher than the catalytic efficiency of WT DBAT towards 10-DAB and Ac-CoA. These findings can provide a promising economically and environmentally friendly method for exploring novel acyl donors to engineer natural product pathways.

The burden of neutropenic sepsis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with single-agent docetaxel: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe rates of confirmed and suspected neutropenic sepsis (NS) and associated hospital resource utilisation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with docetaxel monotherapy following relapse after ≥1 line of chemotherapy in routine UK clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-centre, retrospective, observational research study was conducted in seven centres across England and Wales. Adult patients with stage III/IV NSCLC initiated on docetaxel monotherapy between 2010 and 2016 in routine clinical practice (aged ≥18 years at initiation) following failure of first-line chemotherapy were eligible. Data were collected from hospital medical records between May 2016 and July 2016, on all episodes of confirmed or suspected NS related to docetaxel monotherapy, including patient characteristics. Episodes of confirmed NS were defined as documented absolute neutrophil count <1.0×109/L, plus temperature >38°C or other signs/symptoms of sepsis, otherwise episodes were classified as suspected NS. RESULTS: 121 patients were included (median age 65.5 years; 57.9% male; median 4.0 cycles of docetaxel; 19.8% treated with prophylactic granulocyte-colony stimulating factor). Episodes of confirmed or suspected NS were recorded in 21/121 (17.4%) patients (11 confirmed episodes in 11 [9.1%] patients and 11 suspected episodes in 10 [8.3%] patients). Resource utilisation data were available for 21/22 episodes; the mean length of stay for confirmed NS admissions (n=11) was 9.2 (SD: 9.2) days and for suspected NS admissions (n=10) was 4.7 (SD: 4.6) days. The most commonly prescribed treatment for NS was piperacillin/tazobactam therapy (46.5% of all documented treatments). The mean total costs of managing patients with confirmed NS (n=11) and suspected NS (n=9) were £3163 (SD: £2921) and £1790 (SD: £1585) per patient, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of confirmed NS in UK clinical practice were broadly similar to those reported in clinical trials; however, the burden of suspected NS, not routinely reported elsewhere, is also substantial.

Economic evaluation of sequencing strategies in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Mexico: a contrast between public and private payer perspectives.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in Mexico. A large proportion of Mexican patients present with advanced disease, and 25% have HER2-positive tumors. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of different sequencing strategies of HER2-targeted agents in Mexico according to various payer perspectives. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four different HER2-targeted treatment sequences among patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated in Mexico according to three public and one private payer perspectives. Patients were followed weekly over their remaining life expectancies within the model. Health states considered were progression-free survival (PFS) 1st-3rd lines, and death. Transition probabilities between states were based on published trials. Cost data were obtained from official publications from Mexican healthcare institutions. The evaluated outcomes were PFS, OS, costs, QALYs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the public payer perspective, sequences containing pertuzumab or T-DM1 were not cost-effective when compared with a sequence including the combination of trastuzumab/docetaxel as first line without subsequent T-DM1 or pertuzumab, even when utilizing alternate definitions for willingness to pay thresholds. In the private payer perspective, a sequence containing T-DM1 but not pertuzumab proved cost-effective at a lower clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In Mexico, the use of at least three lines of trastuzumab in combination with other therapies, but not with pertuzumab or TDM-1, represents the most cost-effective option for patients covered by the public healthcare system, and this sequence should be made available for all patients.

Docetaxel in hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer; GENESIS-SEFH evaluation reporta.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common urogenital malignancy in older men and the second leading cause of death by cancer in men in Europe. Current therapeutic practice considers Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) as first line treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer at high-risk, either locally advanced or metastatic. ADT can be achieved through orchiectomy (surgical castration), luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or through complete androgen blockade (LHRH agonist combined with an anti-androgen). Docetaxel in combination with prednisone or prednisolone is indicated for the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. The CHAARTED and STAMPEDE clinical trials studied the effect of bringing forward the use of docetaxel added on to ADT in the context of hormone-sensitive patients. The CHAARTED clinical trial showed a significant increase in a variable with maximum relevance such as Overall Survival (OS), with a difference of 13.6 months between medians. There was also clinical benefit in the secondary variables: median time until castration-resistant disease or until clinical progression. In the STAMPEDE clinical trial, which included 39% of non-metastatic patients, a 10-month difference between medians was demonstrated in OS, and 17 months in the primary co-variable of Progression Free Survival. The most frequent adverse events were: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia, and general disorders such as asthenia, lethargy or fever. According to data from the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies, and the incremental cost of € 3 196.98 for adding on docetaxel to standard treatment, the estimated additional cost for each year of life gained is compatible with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between € 2 267.36 and € 3 851.78. In view of the efficacy and safety results, the proposed positioning is: to advance the use of docetaxel added to androgen deprivation therapy to first-line metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, regardless of metastatic volume, in those patients who meet the CHAARTED study criteria.

El cáncer de próstata (CP) es el tumor maligno urogenital más frecuente en hombres de edad avanzada y la segunda causa de muerte por cáncer en hombres en Europa. La práctica terapéutica actual considera como primera línea la terapia de privación de andrógenos (ADT; androgen deprivation therapy) en el cáncer de próstata clínicamente localizado de alto riesgo, localmente avanzado o metástasico. La ADT se realiza mediante orquiectomía (castración quirúrgica), agonistas de la hormona liberadora de hormona luteinizante (LHRH), o bien mediante el bloqueo androgénico completo (agonista LHRH más antiandrógeno). El docetaxel en combinación con prednisona o prednisolona está indicado para el tratamiento de pacientes con cáncer de próstata hormono-refractariometastásico. Los ensayos clínicos CHAARTED y STAMPEDE analizaron el efecto de adelantar el uso de docetaxel añadido a la ADT en el contexto del paciente hormonosensible. En el ensayo CHAARTED se demostró un aumento significativo en la variable de máxima relevancia como es la supervivencia global (SG), con una diferencia de medianas de 13,6 meses. También se obtuvo beneficio clínico en las variables secundarias mediana de tiempo hasta enfermedad resistente a la castración o hasta progresión clínica. En el ensayo STAMPEDE, en el que se incluyeron un 39% de pacientes no metastásicos, se demostró una diferencia de medianas de 10 meses en la SG y de 17 meses en la covariable principal de supervivencia libre de progresión. Los eventos adversos más frecuentes fueron: neutropenia, neutropenia febril, leucopenia y alteraciones generales tales como astenia, letargia o fiebre. Según los datos del estudio CHAARTED y STAMPEDE y el coste incremental de 3.196,98 € de añadir docetaxel a la terapia de referencia, por cada año de vida ganado el coste adicional estimado es compatible con un coste/eficacia incremental (CEI) entre 2.267,36 € y 3.851,78 €. A la vista de los importantes resultados de eficacia y el perfil manejable de seguridad, el posicionamiento propuesto es adelantar el uso de docetaxel añadido a la ADT a la primera línea del cáncer de próstata metastásico hormonosensible, en aquellos pacientes que cumplan los criterios básicos del estudio CHAARTED.

Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel + trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

Real-world and trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: a study of the Southeast Netherlands Breast Cancer Consortium.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our analysis was to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment versus taxane monotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer compared with the cost-effectiveness based on the efficacy results from a trial. METHODS: A state transition model was built to estimate costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatments. Two scenarios were examined: a real-world scenario and a trial-based scenario in which transition probabilities were primarily based on a real-world cohort study and the E2100 trial, respectively. In both scenarios, costs and utility parameter estimates were extracted from the real-world cohort study. Moreover, the Dutch health care perspective was adopted. RESULTS: In both the real-world and trial scenarios, bevacizumab-taxane is more expensive (incremental costs of €56,213 and €52,750, respectively) and more effective (incremental QALYs of 0.362 and 0.189, respectively) than taxane monotherapy. In the real-world scenario, bevacizumab-taxane compared to taxane monotherapy led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €155,261 per QALY gained. In the trial scenario, the ICER amounted to €278,711 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: According to the Dutch informal threshold, bevacizumab in addition to taxane treatment was not considered cost-effective for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer both in a real-world and in a trial scenario.

Docetaxel chemotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: cost of care in Medicare and commercial populations.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the healthcare costs and characteristics of docetaxel chemotherapy episodes of care for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This study used the Medicare 5% sample and MarketScan Commercial (2010-2013) claims data sets to identify men with mCRPC and initial episodes of docetaxel treatment. Docetaxel episodes included docetaxel claim costs from the first claim until 30 days after the last claim, with earlier termination for death, insurance disenrollment, or the end of a 24-month look-forward period from initial docetaxel index date. Docetaxel drug claim costs were adjusted for 2011 generic docetaxel introduction, while other costs were adjusted to 2015 values using the national average annual unit cost increase. RESULTS: This study identified 281 Medicare-insured and 155 commercially insured men, with 325 and 172 docetaxel episodes, respectively. The average number of cycles (unique docetaxel infusion days) per episode was 6.9 for Medicare and 6.3 for commercial cohorts. The average cost per episode was $28,792 for Medicare and $67,958 for commercial cohorts, with docetaxel drug costs contributing $2,588 and $13,169 per episode, respectively. The average cost per episode on docetaxel infusion days was $8,577 (30%) for Medicare and $28,412 (42%) for commercial. Non-docetaxel infusion day costs included $7,074 (25%) for infused or injected drugs for Medicare, $10,838 (16%) for commercial cohorts, and $6,875 (24%) and $9,324 (14%) for inpatient admissions, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The applicability is only to the metastatic castration-resistance clinical setting, rather than the metastatic hormone-sensitive setting, and the lack of data on the cost effectiveness of different sequencing strategies of a range of systemic therapies including enzalutamide, abiraterone, radium-223, and taxane chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The majority of docetaxel episode costs in Medicare and commercial mCRPC populations were non-docetaxel drug costs. Future research should evaluate the total cost of care in mCPRC.

Budgetary Impact of Cabazitaxel Use After Docetaxel Treatment for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With the approval of several new treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), budgetary impact is a concern for health plan decision makers. Budget impact models (BIMs) are becoming a requirement in many countries as part of formulary approval or reimbursement decisions. Cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane developed to overcome resistance to docetaxel and is approved for the treatment of patients with mCRPC previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. OBJECTIVE: To estimate a 1-year projected budget impact of varying utilization rates of cabazitaxel as a second-line treatment for mCRPC following docetaxel, using a hypothetical U.S. private managed care plan with 1 million members. METHODS: A BIM was developed to evaluate costs for currently available treatment options for patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel. Treatments included in the model were cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and radium-223, with utilization rates derived from market research data. Medication costs were calculated according to published pricing benchmarks factored by dosing and duration of therapy as stated in the prescribing information for each agent. Published rates and costs of grade 3-4 adverse events were also factored into the model. In addition, the model reports budget impact under 2 scenarios. In the first base-case scenario, patient out-of-pocket costs were subtracted from the total cost of treatment. In the second scenario, all treatment costs were assumed to be paid by the plan. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1 million-member health plan population, 100 patients were estimated to receive second-line treatment for mCRPC after treatment with docetaxel. Using current utilization rates for the 4 agents of interest, the base-case scenario estimated the cost of second-line treatment after docetaxel to be $6,331,704, or $0.528 per member per month (PMPM). In a scenario where cabazitaxel use increases from the base-rate case of 24% to a hypothetical rate of 33%, the PMPM cost would decrease to $0.524, reflecting a cost saving of $0.004 PMPM and equating to incremental savings of $49,546, or $497 per patient per year (PPPY). In the second scenario, when out-of-pocket costs were not considered, the cost of second-line treatment after docetaxel was estimated as $6,733,594, or $0.561 PMPM. With a hypothetical increase in cabazitaxel use (24%-33%), the PMPM cost would decrease to $0.554, reflecting savings of $0.007 PMPM and equating to incremental savings of $86,136, or $864 PPPY. The primary driver of cost savings with increased cabazitaxel use was lower acquisition cost. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model results were robust over a wide range of input values (utilization, prevalence, and population parameters). CONCLUSIONS: In the presented BIM, an increase in cabazitaxel use is expected to result in modest cost savings to the health plan. Patient coinsurance savings may also be realized based on applicable Medicare Part B and Part D calculations. This BIM presents an objective, comprehensive, robust, and user-adaptable tool that health plans and medical decision makers may use to evaluate potential economic impact of formulary and reimbursement decisions. DISCLOSURES: Research and analysis were funded by Sanofi US. The sponsor had the opportunity to review the final draft; however, the authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions. Flannery, Drea, Hudspeth, and Miao are employees of Sanofi. Miao is an owner of stock in Sanofi. Corman, Gao, and Xue are employees of Pharmerit International and served as consultants to Sanofi during this study. All authors contributed to study design and data collection and analysis. The manuscript was written by Flannery, along with the other authors, and revised by all the authors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of additional docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen-deprivation therapy from a Chinese perspective.

The E3805 (CHAARTED) study found that docetaxel combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved overall survival of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aims to determine whether docetaxel combined with ADT is a cost-effective strategy for advanced prostate cancer in China. According to the E3805 study, two groups (docetaxel + ADT and ADT alone) and three health states [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death] were analysed in a Markov model. All medical costs were calculated from the Chinese societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were applied as the primary outcome. Overall, the addition of docetaxel was estimated to increase the cost by $12 816.93, with a gain of 0.48 QALY. Additionally, for patients with high-volume disease, the increased cost and effectiveness were $14 627.75 and 0.69 QALYs in docetaxel + ADT group versus the ADT alone group, and the ICER was $21 199.63 per QALY. These ICERs are far more than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $20 301 per QALY in China. In spite of longer survival time, docetaxel combined with ADT is not a recommended cost-effective treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the Chinese setting.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for the treatment of previously treated PD-L1 positive advanced NSCLC patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-squamous cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1 positive tumors (total proportion score [TPS] ≥ 50%). The analysis was conducted from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed using data from patients from the KEYNOTE 010 clinical trial. The model used Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the trial for patients treated with either pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 with extrapolation based on fitted parametric functions and long-term registry data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived based on EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE 010 using a time to death approach. Costs of drug acquisition/administration, adverse event management, and clinical management of advanced NSCLC were included in the model. The base-case analysis used a time horizon of 20 years. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Base case results project for PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥50%) patients treated with pembrolizumab a mean survival of 2.25 years. For docetaxel, a mean survival time of 1.07 years was estimated. Expected QALYs were 1.71 and 0.76 for pembrolizumab and docetaxel, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained with pembrolizumab vs docetaxel is $168,619/QALY, which is cost-effective in the US using a threshold of 3-times GDP per capita. Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust over plausible values of the majority of inputs. Results were most sensitive to extrapolation of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered as a cost-effective option compared to docetaxel in PD-L1 positive (TPS ≥50%) pre-treated advanced NSCLC patients in the US.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana®, Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m2 of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab versus Docetaxel for Advanced Nonsquamous NSCLC Including PD-L1 Testing.

INTRODUCTION: Nivolumab (NIV) was recently approved in several countries for patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC. NIV is not cost-effective compared with docetaxel (DOC) for the treatment of squamous NSCLC. However, its cost-effectiveness for nonsquamous NSCLC and the consequences of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing are unknown. METHODS: This literature-based health economic study used CheckMate-057 trial data to model the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NIV versus DOC in the Swiss health care setting. The effect of PD-L1 positivity for patient selection was assessed. RESULTS: In the base case model, NIV (mean cost CHF66,208; mean effect 0.69 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with DOC (mean cost CHF37,618; mean effect 0.53 QALYs) resulted in an ICER of CHF177,478/QALY gained. Treating only patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (threshold ≥10%) with NIV compared with treating all patients with DOC produced a base case ICER of CHF124,891/QALY gained. Reduced drug price, dose, or treatment duration decreased the ICER partly below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. Health state utilities strongly influenced cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DOC, NIV is not cost-effective for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC at current prices in the Swiss health care setting. Price reduction or PD-L1 testing and selection of patients for NIV on the basis of test positivity improves cost-effectiveness compared with DOC.

Budget Impact of Enzalutamide for Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is expected to account for approximately one quarter of all new diagnoses of cancer in American men in 2015. The cost of prostate cancer care is expected to reach $15.1 billion by the year 2020, up from $11.9 billion in 2010. Given the high burden of prostate cancer, health care payers are interested in quantifying the potential budget impact of new therapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of enzalutamide for the treatment of chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A model was developed to assess the budget impact of enzalutamide for treatment of chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients in a hypothetical 1-million-member U.S. health plan over a 1-year time horizon. Comparators included abiraterone acetate, sipuleucel-T, radium Ra 223 dichloride, and docetaxel. Epidemiologic data, including National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) incidence rates, were used to estimate the number of chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients. Dosing, administration, duration of therapy, and adverse event rates were based on package inserts and pivotal studies. Drug costs were obtained from RED BOOK and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) average sales price pricing files, costs of administration and monitoring from the CMS physician fee schedule, and adverse events from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and published literature. Market shares were estimated for each comparator before and after adoption of enzalutamide. The incremental aggregate budget impact, per patient per year (PPPY), per patient per month (PPPM), and per member per month (PMPM), was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In a population of 115 chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients, adopting enzalutamide had an annual incremental budget impact of $510,641 ($4,426 PPPY, $369 PPPM, and $0.04 PMPM). Results were most sensitive to enzalutamide drug cost, size of the chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patient population, and enzalutamide adoption rate. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate a modest 1-year budget impact of adopting enzalutamide for chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients, partly because of the cost offset of a moderate incidence of adverse events and lack of additional required monitoring.

Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes.

Background Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world and is associated with significant mortality. Nivolumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were previously treated. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab has not been assessed in Canada. A contentious component of projecting long-term cost and outcomes in cancer relates to the modeling approach adopted, with the two most common approaches being partitioned survival (PS) and Markov models. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the cost-utility of nivolumab and to compare the results using these alternative modeling approaches. Methods Both PS and Markov models were developed using docetaxel and erlotinib as comparators. A three-health state model was used consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Disease progression and time to progression were estimated by identifying best-fitting survival curves from the clinical trial data for PFS and OS. Expected costs and health outcomes were calculated by combining health-state occupancy with medical resource use and quality-of-life assigned to each of the three health states. The health outcomes included in the model were survival and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs). Results Nivolumab was found to have the highest expected per-patient cost, but also improved per-patient life years (LYs) and QALYs. Nivolumab cost an additional $151,560 and $140,601 per QALY gained compared to docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively, using a PS model approach. The cost-utility estimates using a Markov model were very similar ($152,229 and $141,838, respectively, per QALY gained). Conclusions Nivolumab was found to involve a trade-off between improved patient survival and QALYs, and increased cost. It was found that the use of a PS or Markov model produced very similar estimates of expected cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-utility.

Is febrile neutropenia prophylaxis with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors economically justified for adjuvant TC chemotherapy in breast cancer?

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) during adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with morbidity, mortality risk, and substantial cost, and subsequent chemotherapy dose reductions may result in poorer outcomes. Patients at high risk of, or who develop FN, often receive prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF). We investigated whether different prophylaxis strategies with G-CSF offered favorable value-for-money. METHODS: We developed a decision model to estimate the short- and long-term costs and outcomes of a hypothetical cohort of women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant taxotere + cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy. The short-term phase estimated upfront costs and FN risks with adjuvant TC chemotherapy without G-CSF prophylaxis (i.e., chemotherapy dose reductions) as well as with secondary and primary G-CSF prophylaxis strategies. The long-term phase estimated the expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients who completed adjuvant TC chemotherapy with or without one or more episodes of FN. RESULTS: Secondary G-CSF was associated with lower costs and greater QALY gains than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF appears likely to be cost-effective relative to secondary G-CSF at FN rates greater than 28%, assuming some loss of chemotherapy efficacy at lower dose intensities. The cost-effectiveness of primary vs. secondary G-CSF was sensitive to FN risk and mortality, and loss of chemotherapy efficacy following FN. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary G-CSF is more effective and less costly than a no G-CSF strategy. Primary G-CSF may be justified at higher willingness-to-pay thresholds and/or higher FN risks, but this threshold FN risk appears to be higher than the 20% rate recommended by current clinical guidelines.