The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

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.

Health-related quality of life and cost comparison of adjuvant capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in stage III colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs associated with 2 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens [capecitabine-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV)-based therapy] in stage III colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study from July 2008 to July 2011. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires was used to assess HRQoL before, during, and after treatment. The direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a specially prepared questionnaire, the National Health Insurance Research Database, and other published sources. We used propensity scoring to match samples between groups and performed multivariate analyses to adjust for differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 497 patients were enrolled, and 356 completed the surveys. Following propensity score matching, 239 patients were included in the analysis (122 in the capecitabine-based group, 117 in the 5-FU/LV-based group). Global HRQoL scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, compared to patients in the 5-FU/LV-based group, patients in the capecitabine-based group had less nausea and vomiting (mid-term, P = 0.024; final, P = 0.013), appetite loss (mid-term, P < 0.0001; final, P = 0.001), and fewer side effects from chemotherapy (mid-term, P = 0.017). In addition, the monthly cost of capecitabine-based therapy was lower than those of 5-FU/LV-based therapy [NT$31,895.46 (US$1063.18) vs. NT$79,159.24 (US$2638.64) per patient]. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine is a reasonable alternative and cost-effective treatment option under current conditions for patients with stage III colorectal cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colon cancer treatments from MOSIAC and No. 16968 trials.

AIM: To compare XELOX and FOLFOX4 as colon cancer adjuvant chemotherapy based on MOSAIC and No. 16968 trails from Chinese cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to compare the FOLFOX4 and XELOX regimens based MOSAIC and No. 16968 trial. Five states were included in our Markov model: well (state 1), minor toxicity (state 2), major toxicity (state 3), quitting adjuvant chemotherapy (state 4), and death due to adjuvant chemotherapy (state 5). Transitions among the 5 states were assumed to be Markovian. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care payer. The utility data were taken from published studies. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty factors in this cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Total direct costs of FOLFOX4 and XELOX per patient were $19884.96 ± 4280.30 and $18113.25 ± 3122.20, respectively. The total fees related to adverse events per patient during the entire treatment were $204.75 ± 16.80 for the XELOX group, and $873.72 ± 27.60 for the FOLFOX4 group, and the costs for travel and absenteeism per patient were $18495.00 for the XELOX group and $21,352.68 for the FOLFOX4 group. The base-case analysis showed that FOLFOX4 was estimated to produce an additional 0.06 in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at an additional cost of $3950.47 when compared to the XELOX regimen over the model time horizon. The cost per QALY gained was $8047.30 in the XELOX group, which was $900.98 less than in the FOLFOX4 group ($8948.28). The one way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the utility for the well state and minor toxicity state greatly influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: In term of cost-comparison, XELOX is expected to dominate FOLFOX4 regimes; Therefore, XELOX provides a more cost-effective adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer patients in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapies in patients presenting with gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: To analyze and compare the economic outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (referred to as the XELOX strategy) and of S-1 (the S-1 strategy) for gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime disease course associated with stage II or III gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. The lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), associated costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. The clinical data were derived from the results of pilot studies. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, and the utility data were measured from end-point observations of Chinese patients. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the model's outcomes. RESULTS: The combined adjuvant chemotherapy strategy with XELOX yielded the greatest increase in QALYs over the course of the disease (8.1 QALYs compared with 7.8 QALYs for the S-1 strategy and 6.2 for surgery alone). The incremental cost per QALY gained using the XELOX strategy was significantly lower than that for the S-1 strategy ($3,502 vs. $6,837, respectively). The results were sensitive to the costs of oxaliplatin and the hazard ratio of relapse-free survival. CONCLUSION: The observations reported herein suggest that adjuvant therapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin is a highly cost-effective strategy and more favorable treatment option than the S-1 strategy in patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy.

Cost-effectiveness of aspirin adjuvant therapy in early stage colorectal cancer in older patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent observational studies showed that post-operative aspirin use reduces cancer relapse and death in the earliest stages of colorectal cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aspirin as an adjuvant therapy in Stage I and II colorectal cancer patients aged 65 years and older. METHODS: Two five-state Markov models were constructed separately for Stage I and II colorectal cancer using TreeAge Pro 2014. Two hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 individuals at a starting age of 65 years and with colorectal cancer in remission were put through the models separately. Cost-effectiveness of aspirin was evaluated against no treatment (Stage I and II) and capecitabine (Stage II) over a 20-year period from the United States societal perspective. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses and multivariable Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analyses, aspirin was cheaper and more effective compared to other comparators in both stages. Sensitivity analyses showed that no treatment and capecitabine (Stage II only) can be cost-effective alternatives if the utility of taking aspirin is below 0.909, aspirin's annual fatal adverse event probability exceeds 0.57%, aspirin's relative risk of disease progression is 0.997 or more, or when capecitabine's relative risk of disease progression is less than 0.228. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) further showed that aspirin could be cost-effective 50% to 80% of the time when the willingness-to-pay threshold was varied from USD 20,000 to USD 100,000. CONCLUSION: Even with a modest treatment benefit, aspirin is likely to be cost-effective in Stage I and II colorectal cancer, thus suggesting a potential unique role in secondary prevention in this group of patients.

Cost-utility analysis of the newly recommended adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2011 Chinese National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin was first recommended for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2011 Chinese National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer, but the economic influence of this therapy in China is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin after a gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymph-node dissection, compared with a D2 gastrectomy alone, for patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer. METHODS: On the basis of data from the CLASSIC trial, a Markov model was created to determine economic and clinical data for patients in the chemotherapy and surgery group (CSG) and the surgery-only group (SOG). The costs, presented in 2010 US dollars and estimated from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system, were obtained from the published literature and the local health system. The utilities were based on published literature. Costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated. A lifetime horizon and a 3 % annual discount rate were used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For the base case, the CSG compared with SOG would increase LYs and QALYs in a 3-, 5-, 10- or 30-year time horizon (except the QALYs at 3 or 5 years). In the short run (such as in 3 or 5 years), the medical costs would increase owing to adjuvant chemotherapy of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy, but in the long run the costs would decline. The ICERs suggested that the SOG was dominant at 3 or 5 years and the CSG was dominant at 10 or 30 years. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of disease-free survival for 1-10 years for the SOG and the cost of oxaliplatin were the most influential parameters. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a 98.6 % likelihood that the ICER for the CSG would be less than US$13,527/QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China). CONCLUSION: For patients in China with resectable disease, our results suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after a D2 gastrectomy is cost-saving and dominant in the long run on the basis of a current clinical trial, compared with treatment with a D2 gastrectomy alone.

Economic evaluation of first-line adjuvant chemotherapies for resectable gastric cancer patients in China.

BACKGROUND: First-line postoperative adjuvant chemotherapies with S-1 and capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) were first recommended for resectable gastric cancer patients in the 2010 and 2011 Chinese NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Gastric Cancer; however, their economic impact in China is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX, with S-1 and no treatment after a gastrectomy with extended (D2) lymph-node dissection among patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer. METHODS: A Markov model, based on data from two clinical phase III trials, was developed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of patients in the XELOX group, S-1 group and surgery only (SO) group. The costs were estimated from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The utilities were assumed on the basis of previously published reports. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated with a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: For the base case, XELOX had the lowest total cost ($44,568) and cost-effectiveness ratio ($7,360/QALY). The relative scenario analyses showed that SO was dominated by XELOX and the ICERs of S-1 was $58,843/QALY compared with XELOX. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the utility of disease-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a 75.8% likelihood that the ICER for XELOX would be less than $13,527 compared with S-1. When ICER was more than $38,000, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness achieved by S-1 group was greater than 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that for patients in China with resectable disease, first-line adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX after a D2 gastrectomy is a best option comparing with S-1 and SO in view of our current study. In addition, S-1 might be a better choice, especially with a higher value of willingness-to-pay threshold.