Lanreotide vs octreotide LAR for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: An observational time and motion analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lanreotide and octreotide acetate suspension for injectable (LAR) are both recommended for clinical use in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. However, each agent possesses unique attributes in terms of their drug-delivery characteristics. The study objective was to compare overall drug-delivery efficiency between lanreotide and octreotide LAR in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients. METHODS: This study employed an observational time and motion design among patients treated with lanreotide or octreotide LAR across five US cancer centers. Baseline patient data collection included age, disease grade and duration, prior therapies and performance status. Drug-delivery time (drug preparation and administration), total patient time and resource use data were collected for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors receiving lanreotide (n = 22) or octreotide LAR (n = 22). Following each administration, qualitative data on the drug-delivery experience was collected from patients and nurses. RESULTS: Lanreotide was associated with a significant reduction in mean delivery time (2.5 min; 95% CI:2.0 to 3.1) compared to octreotide LAR (6.2 min; 95%CI: 4.4 to 7.9; p = 0.004). The mean total patient time for lanreotide and octreotide LAR was comparable between groups (32.1 vs. 36.6 minutes; p = 0.97). Nurses reported increased concerns with octreotide LAR related to needle clogging (p = 0.034) and device failures (p = 0.057). Overall, lanreotide had a median satisfaction score of 5.0 compared to a score of 4.0 with octreotide LAR (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Lanreotide was associated with significant reductions in drug-delivery time compared to octreotide LAR, which contributed to an improvement in overall healthcare efficiency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03017690.

The development of a prediction tool to identify cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective antiemetics and evidence-based guidelines, up to 40% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy fail to achieve complete nausea and vomiting control. In addition to type of chemotherapy, several patient-related risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) have been identified. To incorporate these factors into the optimal selection of prophylactic antiemetics, a repeated measures cycle-based model to predict the risk of ≥ grade 2 CINV (≥2 vomiting episodes or a decrease in oral intake due to nausea) from days 0 to 5 post-chemotherapy was developed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1198 patients enrolled in one of the five non-interventional CINV prospective studies were pooled. Generalized estimating equations were used in a backwards elimination process with the P-value set at <0.05 to identify the relevant predictive factors. A risk scoring algorithm (range 0-32) was then derived from the final model coefficients. Finally, a receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROCC) analysis was done to measure the predictive accuracy of the scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Over 4197 chemotherapy cycles, 42.2% of patients experienced ≥grade 2 CINV. Eight risk factors were identified: patient age <60 years, the first two cycles of chemotherapy, anticipatory nausea and vomiting, history of morning sickness, hours of sleep the night before chemotherapy, CINV in the prior cycle, patient self-medication with non-prescribed treatments, and the use of platinum or anthracycline-based regimens. The ROC analysis indicated good predictive accuracy with an area-under-the-curve of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.67-0.70). Before to each cycle of therapy, patients with risk scores ≥16 units would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 CINV. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical application of this prediction tool will be an important source of individual patient risk information for the oncology clinician and may enhance patient care by optimizing the use of the antiemetics in a proactive manner.

A randomized, double-blind, phase II, exploratory trial evaluating the palliative benefit of either continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high-risk bone metastases from breast cancer.

Previous studies suggest switching from pamidronate to a more potent bone-targeted agent is associated with biomarker and palliative response in breast cancer patients with bone metastases. Until now, this has not been addressed in a double-blind, randomized trial. Breast cancer patients with high-risk bone metastases, despite >3 months of pamidronate, were randomized to either continue pamidronate or switch to zoledronic acid every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a fall in serum C-telopeptide (sCTx) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included difference in mean sCTx, pain scores, quality of life, toxicity, and skeletal-related events (SREs). Seventy-three patients entered the study; median age 61 years (range 37-87). Proportion of patients achieving a fall in sCTx over the 12-week evaluation period was 26/32 (81 %) with zoledronic acid and 18/29 (62 %) with pamidronate (p = 0.095). Mean decrease in sCTx (mean difference between groups = 50 ng/L, 95 % CI 18-84; p = 0.003) was significantly greater in patients who received zoledronic acid. Quality of life, pain scores, toxicity, and frequency of new SREs were comparable between the two arms. While a switch from pamidronate to zoledronic acid resulted in reduction in mean sCTx, there were no significant differences between the arms for proportion of patients achieving a reduction in sCTx, quality of life, pain scores, toxicity or SREs. Given the lack of palliative improvement, the current data do not support a switching strategy.

What is a new drug worth? An innovative model for performance-based pricing.

This article focuses on a novel method to derive prices for new pharmaceuticals by making price a function of drug performance. We briefly review current models for determining price for a new product and discuss alternatives that have historically been favoured by various funding bodies. The progressive approach to drug pricing, proposed herein, may better address the views and concerns of multiple stakeholders in a developed healthcare system by acknowledging and incorporating input from disparate parties via comprehensive and successive negotiation stages. In proposing a valid construct for performance-based pricing, the following model seeks to achieve several crucial objectives: earlier and wider access to new treatments; improved transparency in drug pricing; multi-stakeholder involvement through phased pricing negotiations; recognition of innovative product performance and latent changes in value; an earlier and more predictable return for developers without sacrificing total return on investment (ROI); more involved and informed risk sharing by the end-user.

A comparison of toxicity and health care resource use between eribulin, capecitabine, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated in a community oncology setting.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine (C), gemcitabine (G), and vinorelbine (V) are commonly used as single agents in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eribulin (E) is one of the most recent cytotoxic agents to gain regulatory approval for metastatic breast cancer in the United States as a single agent. EMBRACE - a large randomized trial demonstrated the safety and overall survival benefit of eribulin in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients compared to treatment of physician's choice. In this analysis, toxicity and the associated health care resource use were compared between the four agents in a sample of metastatic breast cancer patients treated in a US community oncology setting. METHODS: This study identified 411 patients (C=144, G=81, V=96, and E=90) who were treated in 19 community oncology clinics over the preceding two-year period. Data collection included baseline patient and disease characteristics, duration of therapy, use of supportive care drugs, type of dose limiting toxicities, and their impact on overall health care resource use. RESULTS: The median lines of therapy for C, G, V, and E were second, third, third, and fourth, respectively. Patients were comparable with respect to baseline comorbidities, performance status, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, neutrophil, and platelet counts. The proportion reporting at least one adverse event (any grade) with C, G, V, and E was 45%, 65%, 75%, and 63%. The most commonly reported toxicities (regardless of grade) for C, G, and V were diarrhea (19.4%), anemia (34.6%), and neutropenia (50.0%), respectively. The most common toxicity for E was neutropenia (32.2%). Overall, 5.6%, 19.8%, 22.9%, and 22.2% of patients receiving C, G, V, and E required at least one medical intervention to manage a toxic event. Toxicity was the cause of treatment discontinuation in 25.7%, 8.6%, 11.5%, and 8.9% of C, G, V, and E patients, respectively. The primary cause for treatment discontinuation in all four cohorts was disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Eribulin demonstrated a comparable patient safety profile to gemcitabine and vinorelbine, even when administered after three lines of prior therapies. Capecitabine was generally used in earlier lines, had less neutropenia and anemia, but more treatment discontinuations due to toxicity.

Preference weights for chemotherapy side effects from the perspective of women with breast cancer.

Perceptions among women with breast cancer about the relative importance of different potential chemotherapy side effects is not well understood. A survey was performed by women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Grade I/II (mild to moderate) and III/IV (moderate to severe) descriptions of nine common chemotherapy side effects were assigned preference weights using the standard gamble technique. For each hypothetical side effect, patients could choose to stay in the respective side effect state or take a gamble between full health (probability p) or being dead (1 - p). For each side effect, p was varied until the patient was indifferent between these options. The survey also included questions about the importance of survival, slowing cancer growth, and quality of life. This analysis included 69 patients; mean age 54 years (range 35-84), representing all cancer stages. Standard gamble preferences were lowest (i.e., least preferred) for grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (0.621), indicating that patients would, on average, risk a 38 % chance of being dead to avoid having grade III/IV nausea/vomiting for the rest of their lives. The next least preferred side effects were grade III/IV diarrhea (0.677) and grade III/IV sensory neuropathy (0.694). Survival appeared more important than slowing cancer growth and maintaining quality of life across cancer stages. Nevertheless, patients with advanced disease placed less importance on survival (p = 0.09) and higher importance on quality of life (p = 0.05). These standard gamble utilities provide unique insights into chemotherapy toxicities from the patient perspective. Differences in the relative importance of overall survival and quality of life with treatment existed between patients with different stages of disease. These studies should be expanded as the data may also be used to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy in cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast cancer chemotherapies.

Clinical trial design in biosimilar drug development.

In contrast to most drugs which are chemically synthesized and have a known structure, biological drugs are derived from living organisms or their products. Biologicals are structurally more complex and unique from chemically synthesized small drug molecules because of their larger size and intricate manufacturing process. Secondary to their protein structure, they are also more prone to acute and chronic immune responses. Biosimilars are intended to offer comparable safety and efficacy relative to reference brand biologicals, yet they are not generic alternatives to the original compounds and so are currently not considered interchangeable. Given their structural complexity, multifaceted manufacturing processes and risk for immunogenicity, biosimilars require class-specific regulatory approval pathways. Here we seek to provide a general overview of clinical trial design in the era of biosimilar drug development. This will include a review of the regulatory requirements for clinical trials in Europe and the United States, followed by a review of two biosimilars that have recently reported results of randomized trials against branded biologicals.

Clinical outcomes of women with metastatic breast cancer treated with nab-paclitaxel: experience from a single academic cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel is a solvent-free, taxane-based chemotherapy approved for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (mbc). This study reports clinical benefit and toxicities experienced by women with mbc treated with nab-paclitaxel at the Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre. METHODS: Women with mbc treated with single-agent nab-paclitaxel between June 2006 and December 2010 were included in this analysis. Retrospective data obtained included demographics, disease characteristics, prior chemotherapy, nab-paclitaxel treatment, toxicity, and survival. Clinical benefit was defined as partial or complete response or stable disease (by clinical or radiologic evaluation, or both) at 6 months or more. RESULTS: Of 43 women (mean age: 57.0 years; range: 34-74 years), most had disease positive for estrogen or progesterone receptor (72.1%, 58.1%), or both. Nab-paclitaxel was administered weekly (qw: 44.2%), every 3 weeks (q3w: 46.5%), q3w switched to qw (7.0%), or qw switched to q3w (2.3%). Median duration of therapy was 5.1 months (qw) and 3.0 months (q3w). Sensory neuropathy was the primary toxicity (45.4% qw, 38.1% q3w; p = 0.62). Clinical benefit was observed in most women (76.2% qw, 57.1% q3w; p = 0.20). Women receiving nab-paclitaxel had a median overall survival of 13.6 months qw (range: 8.1-28.3 months) and 10.8 months q3w (range: 5.9-17.9 months; p = 0.03). Regardless of dosing schedule, women experiencing clinical benefit lived significantly longer than those not experiencing a benefit (17.3 months vs. 7.7 months; hazard ratio: 0.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical experience demonstrates that most women treated with nab-paclitaxel experienced some clinical benefit. Patients achieving clinical benefit lived significantly longer than those who did not. Nab-paclitaxel was well tolerated, with the primary toxicity being mild sensory neuropathy. Nab-paclitaxel represents another treatment option, with a favourable toxicity profile, for women with mbc.

Development and validation of a prediction index for hand-foot skin reaction in cancer patients receiving sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: This study describes a repeated measures prediction index to identify patients at high risk of ≥grade 2 hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) before each week of sorafenib therapy. METHODS: Data from 451 patients who received a sorafenib (400 mg bid) as part of a clinical trial were reviewed (Escudier B, Eisen T, Stadler WM et al. Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 125-134). Generalized estimating equations were used to develop the final risk model. A risk-scoring algorithm (range 0-58) was then derived from the final model coefficients. External validation was then carried out on a new sample of 1145 patients who received sorafenib under an expanded access program. RESULTS: Pretreatment white blood cell count, female gender, good performance status, presence of lung and liver metastases and number of affected organs were predictors for ≥grade 2 HFSR. A nonlinear association between HFSR risk and treatment duration was also identified where risk was maximized at week 5 followed by a gradual decline. Before each week of therapy, patients with risk scores>40 would be considered at high risk for developing ≥grade 2 HFSR. CONCLUSIONS: The application and planned continued refinement of this prediction tool will be an important source of patient-specific risk information for the development of moderate to severe HFSR.

Prospective validation of risk prediction indexes for acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Despite the use of standardized anti-emetic guidelines, up to 20% of cancer patients suffer from moderate-to-severe chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (cinv)-that is, grade 2 or greater according to the U.S. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. We previously developed cycle-based prediction models and associated scoring systems for acute and delayed cinv. As part of the validation process, we prospectively evaluated the ability of the scoring systems to accurately identify patients deemed to be high risk for grade 2 or greater cinv. METHODS: Patients who were receiving any chemotherapy for solid tumours and who consented to participate were provided with symptom diaries. Compliance to the diaries was enhanced by 24-hour and 5-day telephone callbacks after chemotherapy in every cycle. All patients received anti-emetic prophylaxis as prescribed by the treating physician. Before each cycle of chemotherapy, the acute and delayed cinv scoring systems were used to stratify patients into low- and high-risk groups. Logistic regression modelling was then applied to compare the risk for grade 2 or greater cinv between patients considered to be at high and at low risk. The external validity of each system was also assessed using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (auroc) analysis. RESULTS: We collected cinv outcomes data from 95 patients during 181 cycles of chemotherapy. The incidence of grade 2 or greater acute and delayed cinv was 17.7% and 18.2% respectively. As previously identified, major predictors for grade 2 or greater cinv included younger patient age, platinum- or anthracycline-based chemotherapy, low alcohol consumption, earlier cycles of chemotherapy, previous history of morning sickness, and prior emetic episodes after chemotherapy. The acute and delayed scoring systems both had good predictive accuracy when applied to the external validation sample (acute-auroc: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.79; delayed-auroc: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.80). Patients identified by the scoring systems to be at high risk were 2.8 (p = 0.025) and 3.1 (p = 0.001) times more likely to develop grade 2 or greater acute and delayed cinv. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that our scoring systems are able to accurately identify patients at high risk for acute and delayed cinv. Application and planned continued refinement of the scoring systems will be an important means of patient-specific risk assessment that will allow for optimization of anti-emetic therapy.

An economic analysis comparing health care resource use and cost of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, cisplatin (ddMVAC) and gemcitabine, cisplatin (GC) as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). METHODS: Patient treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 2010 to 2019 were identified. HRU data on chemotherapy administered, supportive medications, patient monitoring, clinic, infusion, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization were collected retrospectively. Unit costs for HRU components were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Website and HRU was compared between groups using quantile regression analysis. RESULTS: 137 patients were included; 51 received ddMVAC and 86 GC. Baseline characteristics were similar, except lower mean age (P < 0.001) and higher proportion of ECOG-PS = 0 (P < 0.001) for ddMVAC. ddMVAC required more granulocyte-colony stimulating factor support (P < 0.001), central line placement (P = 0.017), cardiac imaging (P < 0.001), and infusion visits (P < 0.001), whereas GC required more clinic visits. ED visits were higher for ddMVAC (P = 0.048), while chemotherapy cycle delays and hospitalization days were higher for GC (P = 0.008). After adjusting for ECOG-PS and age, the cost per patient was approximately 41% lower (95%CI: 28% to 52%; P < 0.001) for GC vs. ddMVAC, which translated to a median adjusted cost savings of $7,410 (95%CI: $5,474-$9,347) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Although excess HRU did not clearly favor one regimen, adjusting for PS and age indicated lower costs with GC vs. ddMVAC. Given the similar cumulative cisplatin delivery with both regimens, the associated values and costs supports the preferential selection of GC in the neoadjuvant setting of MIBC.

A randomized trial exploring the biomarker effects of neoadjuvant sequential treatment with exemestane and anastrozole in post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Several adjuvant endocrine strategies exist for postmenopausal women with breast cancer. This study compared the effect of two sequences of aromatase inhibitor use [steroidal (exemestane) and non-steroidal (anastrozole)] on serological and pathological biomarkers when given in the neoadjuvant setting to postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Thirty women were assigned to receive exemestane 25 mg or anastrozole 1 mg each given for 8 weeks in a randomized sequence. The effect of this treatment on serum estrone sulfate and estradiol levels, as well as tumor changes in the proliferation biomarker Ki67 were evaluated at baseline, 8 weeks and 16 weeks. WHO clinical response criteria, patient preference, and quality of life were also assessed. Assessable data was available from 28 patients. There were no differences in concentration changes of serum estradiol or Ki67 between patients in the two arms. Overall clinical response rate was 68% (19/28 assessable patients) and clinical benefit was 93% (26/28 assessable patients). There was no significant difference in toxicity or quality of life scores. The majority of patients expressed a personal preference for anastrozole over exemestane. Results suggest that the order of steroidal and non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors has little effect on outcome. The majority of patients express clear preferences for drug treatments.

A randomized trial of individualized versus standard of care antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: Despite triple antiemetic therapy use for breast cancer patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, nausea remains a clinical challenge. We evaluated adding olanzapine (5 mg) to triple therapy on nausea control in patients at high personal risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: This multi-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial randomized breast cancer patients scheduled to receive neo/adjuvant chemotherapy with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide or platinum-based chemotherapy to olanzapine (5 mg, days 1-4) or placebo. Primary endpoint was frequency of self-reported significant nausea, repeated for all cycles of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included: duration of nausea, overall total control of CINV, Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) using FLIE questionnaire, use of rescue mediation and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: 218 eligible patients were randomised to placebo (105) or olanzapine (113). From days 0-5 following each cycle of chemotherapy, 41.3% (95%CI: 36.1-46.7%) of patients in the placebo group reported significant nausea compared to 27.7% (95%CI: 23.2-32.4%) in the olanzapine group (p = 0.001). Across all cycles of chemotherapy, patients receiving olanzapine experienced a statistically significant improvement in HRQoL (p < 0.001). Grade 1/2 sedation was the most commonly side effect reported at 40.8% in the placebo group vs. 54.1% with olanzapine (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients at high personal risk of CINV, the addition of olanzapine 5 mg daily to standard antiemetic therapy significantly improves the control of nausea, HRQoL, with no unexpected toxicities.

Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases?

BACKGROUND: Decisions about systemic treatment of women with metastatic breast cancer are often based on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and Her2 status of the primary tumor. This study prospectively investigated concordance in receptor status between primary tumor and distant metastases and assessed the impact of any discordance on patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsies of suspected metastatic lesions were obtained from patients and analyzed for ER/PgR and Her2. Receptor status was compared for metastases and primary tumors. Questionnaires were completed by the oncologist before and after biopsy to determine whether the biopsy results changed the treatment plan. RESULTS: Forty women were enrolled; 35 of them underwent biopsy, yielding 29 samples sufficient for analysis; 3/29 biopsies (10%) showed benign disease. Changes in hormone receptor status were observed in 40% (P = 0.003) and in Her2 status in 8% of women. Biopsy results led to a change of management in 20% of patients (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrates the presence of substantial discordance in receptor status between primary tumor and metastases, which led to altered management in 20% of cases. Tissue confirmation should be considered in patients with clinical or radiological suspicion of metastatic recurrence.

Modeling the economic outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs: alternative model frameworks to capture clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Economic models in oncology are commonly based on the three-state partitioned survival model (PSM) distinguishing between progression-free and progressive states. However, the heterogeneity of responses observed in immuno-oncology (I-O) suggests that new approaches may be appropriate to reflect disease dynamics meaningfully. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study explored the impact of incorporating immune-specific health states into economic models of I-O therapy. Two variants of the PSM and a Markov model were populated with data from one clinical trial in metastatic melanoma patients. Short-term modeled outcomes were benchmarked to the clinical trial data and a lifetime model horizon provided estimates of life years and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The PSM-based models produced short-term outcomes closely matching the trial outcomes. Adding health states generated increased QALYs while providing a more granular representation of outcomes for decision making. The Markov model gave the greatest level of detail on outcomes but gave short-term results which diverged from those of the trial (overstating year 1 progression-free survival by around 60%). CONCLUSION: Increased sophistication in the representation of disease dynamics in economic models is desirable when attempting to model treatment response in I-O. However, the assumptions underlying different model structures and the availability of data for health state mapping may be important limiting factors.

Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea in patients with colorectal cancer: a consensus statement by the Canadian Working Group on Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea.

Chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (cid) is a common side effect of cancer treatment and can cause significant morbidity and mortality. Diarrhea is frequently severe enough to require a dose reduction of, a delay in, or a discontinuation of chemotherapy. Diarrhea-associated mortality has been reported to be as high as 3.5% in clinical trials of irinotecan and bolus 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer. The frequency of cid and its impact on patient management are frequently under-recognized in clinical practice.A Canadian working group, consisting of medical oncologists and an oncology pharmacist, was formed in 2001 to review the optimal approach to managing cid and to identify and implement new areas of research. The recommendations that follow are the result of the group's work.Acute medical management of cid includes loperamide or diphenoxylate as first-line agents. Subcutaneous octreotide is recommended for intractable grade 2 diarrhea and may be considered for grade 1 cid that does not resolve with high-dose loperamide. Hospitalization is recommended for patients with grades 3 and 4 cid; in-hospital care includes rehydration, antibiotic therapy, and octreotide.A chemotherapy dose reduction is generally advised for patients who have experienced grade 3 or 4 diarrhea in a previous chemotherapy cycle. If a dose reduction is not desired, prophylaxis with intramuscular long-acting release octreotide may be considered.The foregoing recommendations are based on expert opinion and require validation in prospective clinical trials.

Cost-utility analysis of chemotherapy using paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinorelbine for patients with anthracycline-resistant breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel, docetaxel, and vinorelbine have been approved for chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer that is resistant to anthracyclines. Selecting which agent to use is difficult because each possesses advantages and disadvantages related to clinical response, toxicity, method of administration, and cost. A cost-utility analysis was therefore performed to create a rank order on the basis of effectiveness, quality of life, and economic considerations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight anthracycline-resistant breast cancer patients who had received paclitaxel (n = 34), docetaxel (n = 29), or vinorelbine (n = 25) during the past 2 years were identified. Total resource consumption was collected, which included expenditures for chemotherapy, supportive care, laboratory tests, management of adverse effects, and all related physician fees. Utilities from 25 oncology care providers and 25 breast cancer patients were estimated using the time trade-off technique. The economic estimates from the chart review and clinical data from the literature were then modeled using the principles of decision analysis. RESULTS: Each of the three drugs led to a similar duration of quality-adjusted progression-free survival (paclitaxel, 37.2 days; docetaxel, 33.6 days; vinorelbine, 38.0 days). Vinorelbine was the least costly strategy, with an overall treatment expenditure of Can $3,259 per patient, compared with Can $6,039 and Can $10,090 for paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSION: Palliative chemotherapy with vinorelbine in anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer patients has economic advantages over the taxanes and provides at least equivalent quality-adjusted progression-free survival. These benefits are largely related to its lower drug acquisition cost and better toxicity profile.

Economic analyses of toxicity secondary to anthracycline-based breast cancer chemotherapy.

Doxorubicin (D) is one of the most active agents in the treatment of breast cancer but can be associated with cardiotoxicity (CT) and febrile neutropenia (FN). Epirubicin, a stereoisomer of doxorubicin, is reported to have similar efficacy but reduced toxicity. A retrospective chart audit was performed to estimate the incidence, average length of hospitalisation and resource consumption for the management of CT and FN in 200 patients breast cancer patients receiving equidoses of doxorubicin or epirubicin. Overall, there were three more episodes of CT in the doxorubicin group than in epirubicin patients (five versus two) at a cost of Canadian dollars C$4268/episode. With regard to FN, there were 11 more episodes in the doxorubicin arm (25 versus 14) at a cost of C$5419/episode. The results of the study support the substitution of equidose epirubicin for doxorubicin in women undergoing treatment for malignancies of the breast. Such a policy may result in reduced toxicity-related management costs.