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.

Patient preferences for adjuvant interferon alfa-2b treatment.

PURPOSE: Although trials of adjuvant interferon alfa-2b (IFN alpha-2b) in high-risk melanoma patients suggest improvement in disease-free survival, it is unclear whether treatment offers improvement in overall survival. Widespread use of adjuvant IFN alpha-2b has been tempered by its significant toxicity. To quantify the trade-offs between IFN alpha-2b toxicity and survival, we assessed patient utilities for health states associated with IFN therapy. Utilities are measures of preference for a particular health state on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed utilities for health states associated with adjuvant IFN among 107 low-risk melanoma patients using the standard gamble technique. Health states described four IFN alpha-2b toxicity scenarios and the following three posttreatment outcomes: disease-free health and melanoma recurrence (with or without IFN alpha-2b) leading to cancer death. We also asked patients the improvement in 5-year disease-free survival they would require to tolerate IFN. RESULTS: Utilities for melanoma recurrence with or without IFN alpha-2b were significantly lower than utilities for all IFN alpha-2b toxicities but were not significantly different from each other. At least half of the patients were willing to tolerate mild-moderate and severe IFN alpha-2b toxicity for 4% and 10% improvements, respectively, in 5-year disease-free survival. CONCLUSION: On average, patients rate quality of life with melanoma recurrence much lower than even severe IFN alpha-2b toxicity. These results suggest that recurrence-free survival is highly valued by patients. The utilities measured in our study can be applied directly to quality-of-life determinations in clinical trials of adjuvant IFN alpha-2b to measure the net benefit of therapy.