Bevacizumab in recurrent, persistent, or advanced stage carcinoma of the cervix: is it cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating bevacizumab into the treatment regimen for recurrent, persistent, or advanced stage carcinoma of the cervix following publication of a recent phase III trial that demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of bevacizumab. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness decision model was constructed using recently published results from a Gynecologic Oncology Group phase III study, comparing a standard chemotherapy regimen (Chemo) to the experimental regimen (Chemo + Bev) consisting of the standard regimen+bevacizumab. Costs and adverse events were incorporated and sensitivity analyses assessed model uncertainties. RESULTS: The cost of Chemo + Bev was $53,784 compared to $5,688 for the Chemo arm. The 3.7 month OS advantage with Chemo+Bev came at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $155K per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Chemo + Bev becomes cost-effective with an ICER ≤ $100K in sensitivity analysis when the cost of bevacizumab is discounted >37.5% or the dose is reduced from 15 to 7.5 mg/kg, an effective dose in ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: With an ICER of $155K/QALY, the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy approaches common cost-effectiveness standards. Moderately discounting the cost of bevacizumab or using a smaller dose significantly alters its affordability.

Markov-modeling for the administration of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-line chemotherapy with epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

PURPOSE: So far there is no analysis available on the cost effectiveness of the paclitaxel/platinum-analogue combination versus carboplatin monotherapy with ovarian cancer. Up-to-now only a cost-utility analysis on ovarian carcinoma has been published (Ortega et al. in Gynecol Oncol 66(3):454-463, 1997), which in addition to the first-line chemotherapy included second-line chemotherapy with effectiveness and cost data in the analysis. Therefore, within the scope of our study the cost effectiveness of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-lie chemotherapy was to be determined with epithelial ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: For this purpose a decision-making Markov model was developed which represents the medical and economic consequences of the administration of paclitaxel and platinum derivatives in first-line chemotherapy and the administration of topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin in second-line chemotherapy in the treatment of epithelial ovarian carcinoma by means of data from the literature. Patients were treated either in the early (FIGO stage I-IIa) or advanced stage (FIGO stage IIb-IV). RESULTS: The therapeutic strategy caboplatin followed by topotecan costs 20,123.91 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin 22,336.57 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/pactlitaxel followed by liposomal topotecan 29,820.64 euros and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin 31,560.47 euros from the time of diagnosis until death or survival within 5 years. With lives saved, accordingly of 2.55, 2.70, 2.60 and 2.65 years' costs amounted to 7,891 euros, 8,270.35 euros, and 11,453.62 euros per year of life saved. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the threshold value of social willingness to pay 45,500 euros per year of life saved, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by topotecan, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by topotcan and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin can be evaluated to be cost effective.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013. METHODS: A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed. RESULTS: For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated. LIMITATIONS: As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease. CONCLUSIONS: For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-minimization analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan for the treatment of ovarian cancer in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the most prevalent gynecologic cancer in women. Unfortunately for patients whose cancer is resistant to first-line therapies (platinum and paclitaxel), only a few second-line regimens have both significant efficacy and minimal treatment-related toxicity. Furthermore, the use of these agents increases treatment costs due to adverse events (AEs) related to tolerability and toxicity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the comparative patient-specific treatment costs associated with 2 second-line therapies, both benchmark therapies used to treat ovarian cancer patients in Italy: pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and topotecan, which appear to have similar efficacy but different tolerability and toxicity profiles. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was performed in line with the point of view of Italy's National Health Service. Data on treatment efficacy and the number and types of AEs associated with drug toxicity were taken from a recent Phase III clinical trial comparing PLD with topotecan for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Resource-use estimates for each AE were based on the opinions of a panel of experts (Delphi method). Unit costs were drawn from national sources and a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean total per-patient cost in the PLD arm was 8812 euro(minimum, 8281 euro; maximum, 9314 euro) compared with 15,788 euro in the topotecan arm (minimum 12,014 euro; maximum 18,847 euro). The higher acquisition cost of PLD offset the higher cost of managing the AEs related to treatment with topotecan. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggested the net cost-saving capability of PLD compared with topotecan. PLD required fewer ambulatory care-center visits for treatment administration and was associated with fewer severe AEs than topotecan.

A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer with an annual incidence of 21.6 per 100,000 in England and Wales. Due to the often asymptomatic nature of the early stages of the disease, most cases are not detected until the advanced stages. Consequently, the prognosis after diagnosis is poor and the 5-year survival rate in the UK is only about 30%. Current recommendations suggest that first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer should involve paclitaxel and platinum (Pt)-based therapy (cisplatin/ carboplatin), however, most patients develop resistant or refractory disease and require second-line therapy. Patients may respond to re-challenge with Pt-agents if the treatment-free interval is > 6 months, but an alternative is often required. Topotecan is one of six drugs currently licensed in the UK for second-line therapy, and recent reviews suggest that it has modest efficacy in the treatment of advanced disease and performs favourably against paclitaxel. However, these reviews are based on a limited number of reports mainly consisting of non-randomised Phase I and II studies. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral and intravenous topotecan (Hycamtin, SmithKline Beecham, UK) for the treatment of all stages of ovarian cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: Sixteen electronic databases from inception to September 2000 and Internet resources were searched, in addition to the bibliographies of retrieved articles and submissions from pharmaceutical companies. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts and included/excluded studies based on full copies of manuscripts. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and full economic evaluations comparing topotecan to non-topotecan regimens were included. All stages of therapy and disease were considered, and the outcomes included were survival, response, symptom relief, quality of life, adverse effects and costs. METHODS: DATA EXTRACTION STRATEGY: Data were extracted into an Access database by one reviewer and checked by a second. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS: QUALITY ASSESSMENT STRATEGY: Two reviewers, using specified criteria, independently assessed the quality of the clinical effectiveness studies and the economic evaluations. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS: ANALYSIS STRATEGY: Due to the limited number of studies included in the review and the fact that they compared topotecan with different comparators, the out-come data could not be pooled statistically. Clinical effectiveness data are discussed separately under the different outcome subheadings. For time-to-event data, hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals are presented where available, and for the remaining outcomes, relative risks are reported or calculated where sufficient data were available. Relative risk data are also presented in the form of Forest plots without pooled estimates. Economic data are presented in the form of a summary and critique of the evidence, and a grading (A-I) assigned to each study indicating the direction and magnitude of the cost-effectiveness data. INCLUDED STUDIES: A total of 568 titles/abstracts were identified and screened for relevance. Full copies of 72 papers were assessed and seven published manuscripts reporting details of two studies of clinical effectiveness and one economic evaluation were included. Further details of the two clinical effectiveness studies and two new economic evaluations were identified from confidential company submissions. Overall, two international multicentre RCTs of effectiveness comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (trial 039) and topotecan with caelyx (trial 30-49) were included in the review. The three economic evaluations included in the review comprised one cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) comparing topotecan with caelyx, one cost-consequences analysis (CCA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel, etoposide and altretamine and one cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel. RESULTS: QUALITY OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS DATA: Both clinical effectiveness studies (trial 30-49 and 039) were of reasonable quality, although it was unclear whether either performed valid intention-to-treat analyses. In addition, trial 30-49 failed to state whether the outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS --QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: The CCA (comparing topotecan with three comparators) was of poor quality and of little relevance to the UK NHS. The CMA and CEA were of reasonable quality overall and relevant to the UK NHS. However, both, in particular the CEA, suffered from methodological problems, and thus their findings should be interpreted with caution. RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on limited data. Only two trials with a total of 709 participants were identified. In general, with a few minor exceptions, there were no statistically significant differences between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in survival, response rate, median time to response, median duration of response and quality of life. Significant differences that were reported were mainly identified in subgroup analyses (Pt-sensitive disease and disease without ascites) of questionable validity and their relevance to a general advanced ovarian cancer patient population undergoing second-line chemotherapy is unclear. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Topotecan was associated with increased incidences of haematological toxicities (including neutropenia, leukopenia, anaemia and thrombocytopenia), alopecia, nausea and vomiting. Caelyx-treated patients suffered from significantly increased incidences of Palmar-Plantar erythrodysesthesia, stomatitis, mucous membrane disorders and skin rashes. Paclitaxel was associated with significant increases in alopecia, arthralgia, myalgia, neuropathy, paraesthesiae, skeletal pain and flushing. RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of cost-effectiveness was also based on limited data, with three evaluations identified, one of which was not relevant. The two remaining studies, comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (CEA) and topotecan with caelyx (CMA), both used effectiveness data from multicentre RCTs and based their costs on 1999/2000 UK sources. The evaluations were conducted from a UK NHS perspective and findings presented in GB pounds/Euros. Topotecan for the second-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer was shown to be more cost-effective than paclitaxel (32,513 GB pounds versus 46,186 GB pounds per person in terms of any response (complete or partial), incremental cost-effectiveness = 3065 GB pounds) in all respects except cost per time without toxicity or symptoms, but less cost-effective than caelyx (14,023 GB pounds versus 9979 GB pounds per person regardless of whether the patient responded). However, direct comparisons of the cost findings between the two studies is difficult because they used different designs, different time horizons for the cost analyses and the findings were presented as costs per person for only patients who responded in one study (topotecan versus paclitaxel) and costs per person regardless of whether they responded in the other study (topotecan versus caelyx). CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that there is little evidence in the form of RCTs on which to base an assessment of the effectiveness of topotecan as second-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence suggests there were no statistically significant differences overall between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in clinical outcomes. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. The clinical significance of the findings is not discussed. Overall, the effects of topotecan could at best be described as modest, but the alternative agents offer no real advantages except fewer side-effects and possibly improved cost-effectiveness. Both of the clinical effectiveness studies on which this evidence is based had methodological flaws, the most serious being the lack of a blinded assessor in the topotecan versus caelyx trial, which is important for unbiased assessment of response outcomes. The economic evaluations also suffered from a number of potential problems. CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further good quality RCTs and CEAs are required comparing topotecan with other licensed and potentially useful (soon to be licensed) second-line treatments for ovarian cancer. At present, it is difficult to make any decisions about topotecan and other drugs for second-line therapy without good quality direct comparisons. In view of the ongoing studies identified, an update of the current review should be considered in approximately 18 months (Summer 2002) or possibly sooner if the recently commissioned National Institute for Clinical Excellence review of caelyx for ovarian cancer identifies additional data relevant to topotecan.

[Economic assessment of Caelyx versus topotecan in advanced ovarian cancer]. / Evaluation économique du Caelyx comparéau topotécan dans le traitement du cancer de l'ovaire à un stade avancé

UNLABELLED: Ovarian cancer is the most frequent cause of death due to gynecologic malignancy in both the United States and in Europe. A phase III investigation compared second line treatment Caelyx with topotecan in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma who failed a first-line platinum-containing regimen. A total of 474 patients were enrolled Although no significant advantage of Caelyx over topotecan with regards to overall survival and progression was found, there were fewer adverse events in the Caelyx arm and Caelyx had significantly better quality of life profile. We conducted a cost minimization analysis of both treatment arms. Costs were estimated from the viewpoint of the hospital, over the duration of the study period (12 weeks). The frequency of adverse events was derived from the trial's CRF, the treatment patterns of adverse events was estimated for each type of adverse event and each grade for a given type of adverse event. Costs included that of the drug and management of adverse events. Because of uncertainty on actual time spent in French hospitals, administration costs were not valued. Adverse events valued in the analysis were: stomatitis/ pharyngitis, PPE, nausea/vomiting diarrhea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, sepsis, fever. Drug costs and costs of blood products were valued using the purchase price by the hospital, costs of tests and hospital days were estimated from the hospital's accounting system. The drug cost per patient was 8,735 euros for Caelyx and 6,196 euros for topotecan, the cost of adverse events were 528 and 3,632 euros for Caelyx and topotecan respectively, due to the high rate of adverse events in patient treated with topotecan. The total costs were 9,279 and 9,938 for Caefyx and topotecan respectively. CONCLUSION: the least expensive management for second line advanced ovarian cancer is Caelyx. Although the initial cost of the drug is higher, the reduced number of adverse events results in a lower total cost. Because treatment with Caelyx is also associated with a better of quality of life, this treatment strategy could be considered dominant.

Topotecan for relapsed small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan is a relatively new drug for use as a second-line treatment in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We performed a systematic review and economic evaluation of topotecan, and consider it here in relation to the NICE end of life criteria. METHODS: Seventeen bibliographic databases (including Cochrane library, Medline and Embase) were searched from 1990 to February 2009, and experts and manufacturers were consulted, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which were selected according to prospectively defined criteria. An economic evaluation was undertaken to assess cost effectiveness compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. The clinical evidence indicates a statistically significant benefit of oral topotecan plus BSC compared to BSC alone for overall survival. Intravenous topotecan was similar in efficacy to both oral topotecan and CAV (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and vincristine). In the survival model, oral topotecan plus BSC was associated with an average gain in life expectancy of approximately 4 months, resulting in a gain of 0.183 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). At an incremental cost of approximately £6200 the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is £33,851 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BSC alone, oral topotecan for patients with relapsed SCLC was associated with improved health outcomes but at increased cost. The ICER is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost effective from an NHS decision making perspective. However, this treatment may fall under supplementary guidance for life extending, end of life treatments.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan as second-line treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC). DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2009, including the Cochrane library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional references and the manufacturer's submission to NICE was also searched. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text of retrieved papers using a standard form. For the clinical effectiveness review, the studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which included adult participants with relapsed SCLC who responded to first-line treatment and for whom re-treatment with first-line therapy was inappropriate. The treatment was topotecan (oral or intravenous, i.v.) compared with one another, best supportive care (BSC) or other chemotherapy regimens. Outcomes included measures of response or disease progression and measures of survival. For the cost-effectiveness review studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit or cost-consequence analyses. Data extraction and quality assessment of included studies was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results. An independent economic model estimated the cost-effectiveness of topotecan (oral or i.v.) compared with BSC. The model used survival analysis methods to derive estimates of mean survival for patients treated with topotecan or receiving BSC alone. These were combined with quality of life (QoL) weights to derive estimates of mean quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients receiving BSC alone or topotecan plus BSC. Categories of costs included in the model included drug use, chemotherapy administration and on-treatment monitoring, management of adverse events, monitoring for disease progression and palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 434 references were identified of which five were included in the clinical effectiveness review. In these trials topotecan was compared with BSC, CAV [cyclophosphamide, Adriamycin (doxorubicin) and vincristine] or amrubicin, or oral topotecan was compared with i.v. topotecan. No economic evaluations were identified. There were no statistically significant differences between groups when i.v. topotecan was compared with either CAV or oral topotecan for overall response rate (ORR). Response rate was significantly better in participants receiving i.v. amrubicin than in those receiving a low dose of i.v. topotecan (38% versus 13%, respectively, p = 0.039). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of oral topotecan compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87, p = 0.01). Drug acquisition costs for four cycles of treatment were estimated at 2550 pounds for oral topotecan and 5979 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Non-drug treatment costs accounted for an additional 1097 pounds for oral topotecan and 4289 pounds for i.v. topotecan. Total costs for the modelled time horizon of 5 years were 4854 pounds for BSC, 11,048 pounds for oral topotecan and between 16,914 pounds and 17,369 pounds for i.v. topotecan (depending on assumptions regarding time progression). Life expectancy was 0.4735, 0.7984 and 0.7784 years for BSC, oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan respectively. Total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.2247 and 0.4077, for BSC and oral topotecan respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 33,851 pounds per QALY gained. Total QALYs for i.v. topotecan were between 0.3875 and 0.4157 (depending on assumptions regarding time progression) resulting in an ICER between 74,074 pounds and 65,507 pounds per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan appeared to be better than BSC alone in terms of improved survival, and was as effective as CAV and less favourable than i.v. amrubicin in terms of response. Oral topotecan and i.v. topotecan were similar in efficacy. Topotecan offers additional benefit over BSC, but at increased cost. ICERs for i.v. topotecan, compared with BSC, were high and suggest that it is unlikely to be a cost-effective option. The ICER for oral topotecan is at the upper extreme of the range conventionally regarded as cost-effective from an NHS decision-making perspective. Further research into the QoL of patients with relapsed SCLC could identify the impacts of disease progression and treatment response.

Topotecan for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of recurrent and stage IVB carcinoma of the cervix, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the evidence submission from the manufacturer to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The outcomes measured were overall survival, progression-free survival, response rates, adverse effects of treatment, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The manufacturer stated that topotecan plus cisplatin is the only combination regimen to date to have demonstrated a statistically significant survival advantage compared to cisplatin monotherapy in the licensed population. The clinical evidence came from three clinical trials comparing topotecan plus cisplatin with cisplatin monotherapy (GOG-0179), topotecan plus cisplatin with paclitaxel plus cisplatin (GOG-0169), and four cisplatin-based combination therapies: topotecan plus cisplatin, paclitaxel plus cisplatin, gemcitabine plus cisplatin, and vinorelbine plus cisplatin (GOG-0204). Results from GOG-0179 showed greater median overall survival with topotecan plus cisplatin than with cisplatin monotherapy: 9.4 months versus 6.5 months. Similar results were also reported for median progression-free survival. Response rates also showed an advantage with topotecan plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin monotherapy. The response rates in patients receiving cisplatin monotherapy were very low, but the potential reasons for this were not discussed in the manufacturer's submission. Patients receiving topotecan plus cisplatin experienced a greater number of adverse events and the ERG was concerned with some of the assumptions related to HRQoL. In the base-case direct comparison, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of topotecan plus cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy was 17,974 pounds per QALY in the main licensed population, 10,928 pounds per QALY in the cisplatin-naive population (including stage IVB patients) and 32,463 pounds per QALY in sustained cisplatin-free interval patients. In response to the point for clarification raised by the ERG, the manufacturer submitted a revised indirect comparison incorporating HRQoL and a longer time horizon. Where the hazard ratio derived from GOG-0169 was employed, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was dominated by topotecan plus cisplatin, but, where the hazard ratio from GOG-0204 was adopted, paclitaxel plus cisplatin was found to have an ICER of 13,260 pounds per QALY versus topotecan plus cisplatin. At present there is a paucity of evidence available on the clinical effects of topotecan plus cisplatin and the effects of palliative treatment in general for women with advanced and recurrent carcinoma of the cervix. Further trials, or the implementation of registries, are required to establish the efficacy and safety of topotecan plus cisplatin. The guidance issued by NICE on 28 October 2009 as a result of the STA states that topotecan in combination with cisplatin is recommended as a treatment option for women with recurrent or stage IVB cervical cancer, only if they have not previously received cisplatin. Women who have previously received cisplatin and are currently being treated with topotecan in combination with cisplatin for the treatment of cervical cancer should have the option to continue therapy until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop.

Costs associated with intravenous chemotherapy administration in patients with small cell lung cancer: a retrospective claims database analysis.

OBJECTIVES: With new oral chemotherapy drugs emerging, it is useful to understand the costs associated with traditional intravenous (IV) therapy. This study aims to assess costs associated with IV chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) from the perspective of large employer-payers. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive retrospective claims database analysis. METHODS: Using medical claims data from 5.5 million beneficiaries between 01/01/1998 and 01/31/2006, we identified patients with lung cancer (ICD-9 codes 162.3-162.9, 176.4, or 197.0) who received IV chemotherapy. A case-finding SCLC algorithm was then applied which selected patients who were treated with chemotherapies commonly used in SCLC (cisplatin/etoposide, cisplatin/irinotecan, carboplatin/etoposide, topotecan, or cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine) and then excluded those who had treatments or procedures indicative of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (positron emission tomography [PET] scan imaging, lung surgery, common NSCLC chemotherapies). Average total costs paid per day of IV chemotherapy administration were computed, along with separate costs for IV chemotherapy drugs, IV chemotherapy administration procedures, and other drugs and services received on IV visit days. Costs were also estimated per course of treatment based on the assumption of four chemotherapy cycles per course with three visits per cycle. RESULTS: Among 8010 patients with a lung cancer diagnosis, 802 were identified as SCLC. In the SCLC subset, the average total daily cost was $787 ($9449/course), with $395 ($4742/course; 50.2%) attributable to IV chemotherapy drugs, $93 ($1112/course; 11.8%) to IV chemotherapy administration, and $300 ($3595/course; 38.0%) to other drugs and services. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed algorithm identified about 10% of patients with lung cancer receiving IV chemotherapy as likely SCLC cases. Future studies should validate this algorithm with medical records data. IV chemotherapy administration and other visit-related drugs and services represented about half of the total cost per IV visit day, with the remainder attributable to direct costs for IV chemotherapy drugs.

Antitumor efficacy testing in rodents.

The preclinical research and human clinical trials necessary for developing anticancer therapeutics are costly. One contributor to these costs is preclinical rodent efficacy studies, which, in addition to the costs associated with conducting them, often guide the selection of agents for clinical development. If inappropriate or inaccurate recommendations are made on the basis of these preclinical studies, then additional costs are incurred. In this commentary, I discuss the issues associated with preclinical rodent efficacy studies. These include the identification of proper preclinical efficacy models, the selection of appropriate experimental endpoints, and the correct statistical evaluation of the resulting data. I also describe important experimental design considerations, such as selecting the drug vehicle, optimizing the therapeutic treatment plan, properly powering the experiment by defining appropriate numbers of replicates in each treatment arm, and proper randomization. Improved preclinical selection criteria can aid in reducing unnecessary human studies, thus reducing the overall costs of anticancer drug development.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.

Topotecan: a new topoisomerase I inhibiting antineoplastic agent.

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, therapeutic, and safety aspects of topotecan, a new antineoplastic agent, and to assess its role in the treatment of cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database English language only, January 1990-March 1998; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; published articles, books, and abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in humans with cancer, clinical case reports, open clinical trials, and controlled clinical studies. Efficacy studies were limited primarily to trials with at least 20 evaluable patients: DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant data were extracted only from published reports. Data were obtained from studies in both articles and abstracts. Only articles written in English were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Topotecan is an effective second- or third-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer and is comparable to ifosfamide, liposomal doxorubicin, and paclitaxel. Activity in combination with other agents and as a first-line agent is yet to be determined. Limited data indicate activity in small-cell lung cancer, cancers of the breast and uterus, and in nonlymphocytic leukemia. The dose-limiting toxicity is myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: Topotecan is an effective second-line agent for patients with unresponsive or relapsed cancer of the ovary. It appears to be similar to other active agents in patients with this disease status. Its ultimate role in ovarian cancer and other neoplasms awaits additional evaluation in combination with other agents and as first-line therapy.

Costs of treatment and outcomes associated with second-line therapy and greater for relapsed ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Most women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) will develop disease progression or recurrence with resistance to platinum therapy. We report overall costs and treatment outcomes associated with topotecan or gemcitabine administration in platinum- and paclitaxel-resistant EOC patients. METHODS: Patients who received topotecan (n = 51) or gemcitabine (n = 56) as second-line therapy or greater for platinum- and paclitaxel-resistant EOC were retrospectively identified. Per patient costs for each regimen were determined and compared. RESULTS: The mean total direct cost per cycle per patient of gemcitabine was $2732.28, with a median total direct cost per cycle of $1382.73. The mean total direct cost per cycle per patient of topotecan was $7832.07, with a median total direct cost per cycle of $4219.02. By comparison of the means, total direct cost per cycle per patient was significantly more expensive for topotecan (P = 0.001). Fifty-six patients received a total of 415 cycles of gemcitabine, median 5 cycles per patient (range, 1-59). Thirteen (23.2%; 95% CI, 11.9-34.5%) of 56 patients displayed clinical benefit, with median PFS of 1.8 months and median overall survival (OS) of 8.2 months. Fifty-one patients received topotecan, for a total of 264 cycles, median 4 cycles per patient (range, 1-42). Twenty-eight (56%; 95% CI, 42.0-70.0%) of 50 patients achieved clinical benefit, with PFS and OS medians of 3.6 and 16.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine and topotecan are active agents in heavily pretreated, platinum- and paclitaxel-resistant EOC patients. Topotecan was more costly to deliver. Although a larger percentage of patients received clinical benefit with topotecan use, this likely reflects physician selection for use of topotecan earlier in the course of disease.

A comparative economic analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan in ovarian cancer in the USA and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Economic information is necessary for rational decision-making in health care. Many European countries require financial impact statements prior to drug approval, and many health care organizations in the USA consider cost-effectiveness when making formulary decisions. We report the findings and discuss the policy implications of an economic evaluation based on an international, randomized controlled trial of salvage therapy for epithelial ovarian cancer, wherein topotecan and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) were found to have similar efficacy but differing toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Direct costs to the payer were estimated for 235 North American and 239 European trial participants who had relapsed or failed platinum-based therapy. Unit costs were obtained from national sources or previously reported economic analyses. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Total cost per person in the topotecan arm was 12,325 dollars (95% CI 9445 dollars to 15,415 dollars; P >0.05) higher in the USA-based analysis and 2909 dollars (95% CI 779 dollars to 3415 dollars; P <0.05) higher in the UK-based analysis than for PLD. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin was cost saving over a wide range of assumptions. The main differences (per person) in toxicity management following PLD compared with topotecan in Europe were for blood transfusions (1190 dollars versus 181 dollars, respectively) and hospitalizations (1197 dollars versus 280 dollars, respectively). In North America, differences were mainly for granulocyte colony stimulating factors (1936 dollars versus 419 dollars micro g, respectively), erythropoietin (3493 dollars versus 308 dollars, respectively) and blood transfusions (1346 dollars versus 140 dollars, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers who evaluate pharmacoeconomic studies should consider international differences in health care delivery. Cost assessments based on information obtained from one country may not be relevant for policy makers in a different country.

Cost-minimisation analysis of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride versus topotecan in the treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain.

The study consisted of a cost-minimisation analysis since the findings from a multicentre randomised phase III trial showed that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride was at least as efficacious as topotecan. An economic model from the Spanish hospitals perspective was constructed to compare the costs derived from the treatment using both drugs in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who failed a first-line platinum-containing regimen. The cost evaluation included direct medical costs: drug, drug administration and costs of managing adverse events. Estimation of resources used in managing adverse events was made retrospectively through an expert panel. Results obtained per patient were: cost of drug and administration, 8647.70 euros for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and 8519.94 euros for topotecan, while cost of managing adverse events was 967.02 euros in the pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride arm and 3304.75 euros for topotecan. The total cost per patient was therefore estimated to be 9614.72 euros for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and 11 824.69 euros for topotecan, showing that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride produces a cost saving of 2209.97 euros per patient in comparison to topotecan. Sensitivity analyses verified the robustness of the results. These findings suggest that pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride is an efficient therapy and can be used as a cost-saving option for treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer who have failed a first-line platinum-containing regimen.