Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The Value of Survival Gains in Pancreatic Cancer from Novel Treatment Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is associated with low survival, with less than 10% of patients surviving 5 years. Recent therapies improve survival outcomes where few alternative therapies exist, but few economic analyses measure the value of survival gains attributable to new therapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the value of survival gains in advanced or mPC attributable to the introduction of novel treatment regimens. METHODS: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate real-world survival gains associated with the introduction of gemcitabine (GEM) for patients diagnosed with stage IV or unstaged mPC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer registries. Then, evidence from clinical trials was used to evaluate the survival gains associated with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nP +GEM) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) relative to GEM. The survival estimates and clinical trial evidence were used to calibrate an economic model and assess the cumulative value of survival gains in mPC to patients. Costs of treatment were calculated based on published cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS: We estimated that the introduction of GEM in 1996 was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.920 (P < 0.05) and an increase in median survival from 3.1 to 4.5 months. Results suggested that the value of survival gains attributable to GEM equaled about $71,000 per patient, while the value attributable to nP + GEM was an additional $56,700. Estimates for the value of survival gains per patient, net of total incremental lifetime treatment costs (drugs, adverse events, and other costs), were $50,294 for GEM and an additional $31,900 for nP + GEM. Clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies reported an overall survival gain from FFX that was larger than, but statistically similar to, nP + GEM and had greater risk of adverse events and total incremental costs. We estimated that the total value of survival gains to mPC patients, net of total costs, associated with GEM was up to $47.6 billion, and the additional values attributable to nP+GEM and FFX were up to $39.0 billion and $26.3 billion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, mPC patients have faced high disease burden and had few treatment options. Treatments introduced since 1996 have led to improved survival, with varying costs associated with treatment and adverse events. Accounting for total incremental costs, the majority of the value of survival gains from GEM and nP+GEM was retained by mPC patients, highlighting the value of innovation in settings where survival is low and few alternative therapies exist. DISCLOSURES: Support for this research was provided by Celgene. Precision Health Economics was compensated by Celgene for work on this study. MacEwan is an employee of, and Yin is a consultant to, Precision Health Economics. Kaura and Khan are employees of Celgene. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Yin and MacEwan, along with Kaura and Khan. MacEwan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by MacEwan and Yin, along with Kaura and Khan. The manuscript was written and revised by MacEwan, Yin, Kaura, and Khan.

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.

First-line trastuzumab plus taxane-based chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: cost-minimization analysis.

AIM: To carry out a cost-minimization analysis including a comparison of the costs arising from first-line treatment by trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: All consecutive patients with human epidermal growth receptor 2-postive metastatic breast cancer who were treated at Besançon University Hospital and Saint Vincent private hospital between 2001 and 2010 by first-line therapy containing trastuzumab plus taxane were retrospectively studied. Economic analysis took into account costs related to drugs, hospitalization, and healthcare travel. RESULTS: Progression-free survival difference between the two treatments was not significant (p = 0.65). First-line treatment by trastuzumab plus taxane was estimated at approximately €68,000 (p = 0.74). The drug costs represented around 70-75% of the total cost, mainly related to the use of trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: Our economic analysis shows that although the costs of the two trastuzumab plus taxane regimens are similar, they may contribute to the on-going debate about the availability and use of innovative chemotherapy drugs, in particular in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer with new therapies such as trastuzumab-DM1 and pertuzumab.

[Chemotherapy in male external genital organs (testicular and penile cancer)]. / Chimiothérapie des organes génitaux externes chez l'homme (cancer du testicule et du pénis).

AIM: To describe drugs used in the chemotherapy of testis and penis neoplasms. MATERIAL: Bibliographical search was performed from the database Medline (National Library of Medicine, PubMed) and websites of the HAS and the ANSM. The search was focused on the characteristics, the mode of action, the efficiency and the side effects of the various drugs concerned. RESULTS: Nowadays, the chemotherapy is perfectly codified in adjuvant treatment or in first-line treatment of metastatic testis cancer. A single dose of carboplatin for seminoma testicular (stage I) in adjuvant treatment situation is one of the latest advances. Concerning penis cancer, the optimal protocols validated by a high level of evidence are missing. CONCLUSION: The chemotherapy in testis and penis neoplasms knew few advances in recent years. So, it is necessary to include patients in clinical research protocols.

Cost effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced operable head and neck cancer followed by surgery and postoperative radiotherapy: a Markov model-based decision analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Head and neck carcinomas are among the most frequent tumor diseases and, because of different multimodal therapy options, cause enormous costs. For this reason, we examined whether in operable advanced head and neck carcinomas, neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy is cost effective in comparison with surgery followed by postoperative radio(chemo)therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed with paclitaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil as induction therapy. The legal health insurance in Germany was chosen for cost perspectives, and a willingness-to-pay limit at EUR 38,000 was set. RESULTS: Total costs for surgery with postoperative radiochemotherapy amounted to EUR 13,999. Prior induction chemotherapy raised the costs to EUR 17,377, with a higher effectiveness by 0.1 years of life. Costs per year of life gained are EUR 33,780. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) with variations in side effects for surgery and postoperative chemotherapy amounted to between EUR 31,520 and 36,050. With variations in side effects for induction chemotherapy, the ICER amounted to EUR 30,060-37,520. The Monte Carlo simulation disclosed cost effectiveness for 55.4% of the patients; for 44.6%, there was no cost effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The Markov-modeled cost effectiveness analysis indicates that with operable head and neck tumors, induction therapy with paclitaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil is cost effective.

Cost-utility analysis of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in monotherapy in pretreated metastatic breast cancer in Spain.

AIM: The COSTABRAX study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) versus polyethylated castor oil-based standard paclitaxel (sb-paclitaxel) in the treatment of patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer in Spain. MATERIALS & METHODS: Efficacy data were obtained from the CA012 trial (nab-paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks [q3w] and sb-paclitaxel q3w) and indirect comparison (sb-paclitaxel administered weekly), and were modeled to a time horizon of 5 years using a Markov model. The analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective. Use of resources and key assumptions of the model were validated by a panel of 22 local oncologists. RESULTS: Compared with sb-paclitaxel q3w, nab-paclitaxel q3w was cost effective, with a cost per life year gained of €11,088 and a cost per quality-adjusted life year of €17,808. Compared with sb-paclitaxel administered weekly, it showed savings of €711 per patient. CONCLUSION: The COSTABRAX study showed that nab-paclitaxel q3w is a cost-effective alternative compared with sb-paclitaxel q3w and a cost-saving alternative to sb-paclitaxel administered weekly in Spain.

A cost-benefit analysis of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy increases progression-free survival (PFS), but not overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recently in November, 2011 the Food and drug administration revoked approval of bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel for the treatment of MBC. The European Medicines Agency, in contrast, maintained its approval of bevacizumab in MBC. While neither agency considers health economics in their decision-making process, one of the greatest challenges in oncology practice today is to reconcile hard-won small incremental clinical benefits with exponentially rising costs. To inform policy-makers in the US, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab/paclitaxel in MBC, from a payer perspective. We created a decision analytical model using efficacy and adverse events data from the ECOG 2100 trial. Health utilities were derived from available literature. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services Drug Payment Table and Physician Fee Schedule and are represented in 2010 US dollars. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Bevacizumab added 0.49 years of PFS and 0.135 QALY with an incremental cost of $100,300, and therefore a cost of $204,000 per year of PFS gained and an ICER of $745,000 per QALY. The main drivers of the model were drug acquisition cost, PFS, and health utility values. Using a threshold of $150,000/QALY, drug price would have to be reduced by nearly 80% or alternatively PFS increased by 10 months to make bevacizumab cost-effective. The results of the model were robust in sensitivity analyses. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is not cost-effective in treating MBC. Value-based pricing and the development of biomarkers to improve patient selection are needed to better define the role of the drug in this population.

Cost-minimization analysis for Portugal of five doublet chemotherapy regimens from two phase III trials in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of chemotherapy regimens for stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been conducted for many European countries, but not for Portugal. This study evaluates the total health care costs of five commonly used doublet regimens with similar efficacy results. METHODS: Using the methodology reported by Schiller [Schiller JH, Tilden D, Aristides M, Lees M, Kielhorn A, Maniadakis N, et al. Restropective cost analysis of gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer compared to other combination therapies in Europe. Lung Cancer 2004;43:101-12], we conducted a cost-minimization analysis to compare vinorelbine-cisplatin (Vin/Cis), gemcitabine-cisplatin (Gem/Cis), paclitaxel-carboplatin (Pac/Carb), docetaxel-cisplatin (Doc/Cis), and paclitaxel-cisplatin (Pac/Cis). The perspective was that of the Portuguese National Health Service and included only direct medical costs (reimbursed costs plus co-payments): chemotherapy acquisition, chemotherapy administration, hospitalizations due to adverse events, and other medical resources. Unit costs were drawn from official sources (Diagnosis Related Groups and retail/hospital costs) (2003 value [Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) published at Diário da República; 2003]). Resource use was estimated from two multicenter randomized phase III trials [Comella P, Frasci G, Panza N, Manzione L, De Cataldis G, Cioffi R, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1451-7; Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;346:92-8]. A time horizon of a full course of therapy was adopted. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The least and the most costly chemotherapy regimens were Gem/Cis and Pac/Carb, respectively. Total mean cost per patient was estimated at euro7083 for Gem/Cis and euro10,008 for Pac/Carb, a mean cost savings of euro2925 per patient for Gem/Cis. The differences were mainly due to the higher chemotherapy acquisition costs of Pac/Carb than for Gem/Cis. Gem/Cis was less costly in all sensitivity analyses except when 100% inpatient chemotherapy administration was assumed. CONCLUSION: Gem/Cis should be considered as a cost-saving alternative to the other four regimens in treating NSCLC patients in Portugal.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel as alternative combination therapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: A phase III trial by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) provides strong evidence that a new alternative therapy--paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Princeton, NJ) in combination with cisplatin (Platinol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co)--is clinically more effective than the standard therapy using cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co) in combination with cisplatin in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. We conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis to determine whether the alternative paclitaxel-cisplatin (TP) therapy is cost-effective (CE) in comparison to standard cyclophosphamide-cisplatin (CP) therapy. METHODS: Using an economic model, we applied cost data figures to resource utilization data derived from the two arms of the GOG trial. We examined paclitaxel benefits in terms of increased mean survival time, as well as median survival time. Estimates of the cumulative proportion surviving in the trial were based on Kaplan-Meier procedures. RESULTS: Per year of life gained (YLG), TP therapy costs more ($19,820 more for inpatient treatment; $21,222 outpatient) than CP treatment. CONCLUSION: The TP regimen's increased mean survival cost per YLG (inpatient and outpatient settings) adds a substantial benefit at an acceptable cost compared with CP therapy.