Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Abemaciclib and Ribociclib in High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective.

PURPOSE: Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective. METHODS: A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty. RESULTS: In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario. CONCLUSION: The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Impact of Adjuvant Atezolizumab on Recurrences Avoided and Treatment Cost Savings for Patients with Stage II-IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada.

This epidemiological model forecasted reductions in recurrences and recurrence treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care among Canadians with stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at national and provincial levels. The population had resected, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-high (≥50%), EGFR-, ALK-, stage II-IIIA NSCLC eligible for adjuvant treatment. Patients with recurrence or death and the costs of treating recurrences were estimated for those receiving adjuvant atezolizumab or best supportive care each year (2024-2034). Proportions of patients expected to be event free up to 10 years after treatment initiation were extrapolated with parametric survival analyses. In the base case analysis, 240 fewer recurrences were estimated to occur over 10 years (2024-2034) with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care across Canada, with 136 (57%) and 104 (43%) fewer locoregional and metastatic recurrences, respectively. Projected costs of treated recurrences were CAD 33.2 million less over 10 years with adjuvant atezolizumab at a national level (adjuvant atezolizumab, CAD 135.8 million; best supportive care, CAD 169.0 million). This model predicts a considerable long-term reduction in recurrences and substantial treatment cost savings with adjuvant atezolizumab vs best supportive care for patients with PD-L1-high early-stage NSCLC in Canada.

Assessing the fiscal consequences of novel and existing treatments for triple negative breast cancer in Switzerland by applying a government perspective framework.

BACKGROUND: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that can impact patients' employment and workforce participation. This study estimates how the employment effects of TNBC impact government tax revenue and public benefits expenditure in Switzerland, representing the fiscal burden of disease (FBoD), and likely consequences of introducing new treatment options. METHODS: A four-state cohort model was used to calculate fiscal effects for two treatments: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy (P + C→P) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (C). Lifetime present values of tax revenue, social benefit payments, and healthcare costs were calculated for the average population and those undergoing treatment to assess the FBoD. RESULTS: An average TNBC patient treated with C and P + C→P is expected to generate CHF128,999 and CHF97,008 less tax than the average population, respectively, and require increased social benefit payments. Compared to C, 75% of the incremental healthcare costs of P + C→P are estimated to be offset through tax revenue gains. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that 75% of the additional costs of a new TNBC treatment option can be offset by gains in tax revenue. Fiscal analysis can be a useful tool to complement existing methods for evaluating new treatments.

Is Risk-Stratifying Patients with Colorectal Cancer Using a Deep Learning-Based Prognostic Biomarker Cost-Effective?

OBJECTIVES: Accurate risk stratification of patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC) prior to treatment selection enables limited health resources to be efficiently allocated to patients who are likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a recently developed deep learning-based prognostic method, Histotyping, from the perspective of the Norwegian healthcare system. METHODS: Two partitioned survival models were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of Histotyping for two treatment cohorts: patients with CRC stage II and III. For each of the two cohorts, Histotyping was used for risk stratification to assign adjuvant chemotherapy and was compared with the standard of care (SOC) (adjuvant chemotherapy to all patients). Health outcomes measured in the model were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of uncertainty. Scenario analyses were performed to assess the impact of the parameters with the greatest uncertainty. RESULTS: Risk-stratifying patients with CRC stage II and III using Histotyping was dominant (less costly and more effective) compared to SOC. In patients with CRC stage II, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 270,934 Norwegian kroners (NOK) (year of valuation is 2021), and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.99. In stage III, the net monetary benefit of Histotyping was 195,419 NOK, and the net health benefit of Histotyping was 0.71. CONCLUSIONS:  Risk-stratifying patients with CRC using Histotyping prior to the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective strategy in Norway.

Economic Evaluation of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives. METHODS: Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and economic-specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible. RESULTS: The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality-adjusted life-year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high-risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high-quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Surgery Plus Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy Versus Primary Endocrine Therapy Alone in UK Women Aged 70 and Over With Early Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 20% of UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer receive primary endocrine therapy (PET) instead of surgery. PET reduces surgical morbidity but with some survival decrement. To complement and utilize a treatment dependent prognostic model, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies versus PET for women with varying health and fitness, identifying subgroups for which each treatment is cost-effective. METHODS: Survival outcomes from a statistical model, and published data on recurrence, were combined with data from a large, multicenter, prospective cohort study of over 3400 UK women aged 70+ with early breast cancer and median 52-month follow-up, to populate a probabilistic economic model. This model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of surgery plus adjuvant therapies relative to PET for 24 illustrative subgroups: Age {70, 80, 90} × Nodal status {FALSE (F), TRUE (T)} × Comorbidity score {0, 1, 2, 3+}. RESULTS: For a 70-year-old with no lymph node involvement and no comorbidities (70, F, 0), surgery plus adjuvant therapies was cheaper and more effective than PET. For other subgroups, surgery plus adjuvant therapies was more effective but more expensive. Surgery plus adjuvant therapies was not cost-effective for 4 of the 24 subgroups: (90, F, 2), (90, F, 3), (90, T, 2), (90, T, 3). CONCLUSION: From a UK perspective, surgery plus adjuvant therapies is clinically effective and cost-effective for most women aged 70+ with early breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness reduces with age and comorbidities, and for women over 90 with multiple comorbidities, there is little cost benefit and a negative impact on quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Ado-trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) for the Adjuvant Treatment of Patients With Residual Invasive HER2+ Early Breast Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) was recently approved for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) early breast cancer (eBC) with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant taxane and trastuzumab-based treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare T-DM1 versus trastuzumab in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort-based model tracked clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon from a US payer perspective. The model included 6 health states: invasive disease-free, nonmetastatic (locoregional) recurrence, remission, first-line and second-line metastatic BC and death. Model state transitions were based on statistical extrapolation of the head-to-head KATHERINE study and published sources. Dosing and treatment duration reflected prescribing information and trials. Costs (2019 US dollars) associated with pharmaceutical treatment (wholesale acquisition costs), health state specific care, adverse events, and end-of-life care were included. Health state utilities were obtained from KATHERINE and published literature. RESULTS: T-DM1 dominated trastuzumab, yielding lower lifetime costs (-$40,271), and higher life-years (2.980) and quality-adjusted life-years (2.336). Results were driven by patients receiving T-DM1 spending less time in more costly downstream health states, as these patients are less likely to experience a recurrence overall, despite having a higher likelihood of metastatic disease (distant recurrence) in the subset of patients who experience recurrence. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated robust results, with 96.7% of 5000 stochastic simulations producing dominance for T-DM1. The most influential variables were related to treatment costs, off treatment utilities, and health state costs. Additional scenario analyses tested a range of model inputs and assumptions, and produced consistent results. CONCLUSION: Relative to trastuzumab, T-DM1 treatment for patients with HER2+ eBC who have residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant taxane and trastuzumab-based treatment is likely to reduce the overall financial burden of cancer, while simultaneously improving patient outcomes.

Early Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Risk-Based Selection Strategies for Adjuvant Treatment in Stage II Colon Cancer: The Potential Value of Prognostic Molecular Markers.

BACKGROUND: To explore the potential value of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in stage II colon cancer treatment selection, we carried out an early cost-effectiveness assessment of a CMS-based strategy for adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We used a Markov cohort model to evaluate three selection strategies: (i) the Dutch guideline strategy (MSS+pT4), (ii) the mutation-based strategy (MSS plus a BRAF and/or KRAS mutation or MSS plus pT4), and (iii) the CMS-based strategy (CMS4 or pT4). Outcomes were number of colon cancer deaths per 1,000 patients, total discounted costs per patient (pp), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) pp. The analyses were conducted from a Dutch societal perspective. The robustness of model predictions was assessed in sensitivity analyses. To evaluate the value of future research, we performed a value of information (VOI) analysis. RESULTS: The Dutch guideline strategy resulted in 8.10 QALYs pp and total costs of €23,660 pp. The CMS-based and mutation-based strategies were more effective and more costly, with 8.12 and 8.13 QALYs pp and €24,643 and €24,542 pp, respectively. Assuming a threshold of €50,000/QALY, the mutation-based strategy was considered as the optimal strategy in an incremental analysis. However, the VOI analysis showed substantial decision uncertainty driven by the molecular markers (expected value of partial perfect information: €18M). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current evidence, our analyses suggest that the mutation-based selection strategy would be the best use of resources. However, the extensive decision uncertainty for the molecular markers does not allow selection of an optimal strategy at present. IMPACT: Future research is needed to eliminate decision uncertainty driven by molecular markers.

Prosigna test in breast cancer: real-life experience.

PURPOSE: Genomic tests can guide the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy in women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, Human Epidermal growth Factor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC) at intermediate risk of recurrence. We assessed the decision-making and economic impact of the Prosigna test in a real-life setting. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of HR + , HER2- BC patients managed from 2016 to 2020, potential candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy, at intermediate risk of recurrence, in whom a Prosigna test was performed according to contemporary guidelines. The additional cost of chemotherapy over one year in terms of direct medical and non-medical costs was estimated in this study to be €9,737 (derived from a previous study, NCT02813317). The cost of the Prosigna test, as defined by the reimbursement system, was €1,849. RESULTS: Among the 809 patients included in this study, 2.3 Prosigna tests had to be performed to avoid adjuvant chemotherapy for one patient. The number of tests that had to be performed to avoid chemotherapy for one patient was higher for patients with grade 3 tumors and pN1mic axillary node involvement and lower for grade 1 tumors or in the absence of axillary node involvement (pN0), but did not vary according to the 10-year overall survival gain predicted by the Predict online test. The cost saving related to withholding of adjuvant chemotherapy for one patient on the basis of the Prosigna test results was €5,485. CONCLUSION: We present one of the largest cohorts of HR + , HER2- BC patients at intermediate risk of recurrence, in whom a Prosigna test was used to guide the adjuvant therapy decision in a real-life setting, resulting in a 44% decrease in the indication for chemotherapy.

Care Fragmentation and Mortality in Readmission after Surgery for Hepatopancreatobiliary and Gastric Cancer: A Patient-Level and Hospital-Level Analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Administrative Database.

BACKGROUND: Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) and gastric oncologic operations are frequently performed at referral centers. Postoperatively, many patients experience care fragmentation, including readmission to "outside hospitals" (OSH), which is associated with increased mortality. Little is known about patient-level and hospital-level variables associated with this mortality difference. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing HPB or gastric oncologic surgery were identified from select states within the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database (2006-2014). Follow-up was 90 days after discharge. Analyses used Kruskal-Wallis test, Youden index, and multilevel modeling at the hospital level. RESULTS: There were 7,536 patients readmitted within 90 days of HPB or gastric oncologic surgery to 636 hospitals; 28% of readmissions (n = 2,123) were to an OSH, where 90-day readmission mortality was significantly higher: 8.0% vs 5.4% (p < 0.01). Patients readmitted to an OSH lived farther from the index surgical hospital (median 24 miles vs 10 miles; p < 0.01) and were readmitted later (median 25 days after discharge vs 12; p < 0.01). These variables were not associated with readmission mortality. Surgical complications managed at an OSH were associated with greater readmission mortality: 8.4% vs 5.7% (p < 0.01). Hospitals with <100 annual HPB and gastric operations for benign or malignant indications had higher readmission mortality (6.4% vs 4.7%, p = 0.01), although this was not significant after risk-adjustment (p = 0.226). CONCLUSIONS: For readmissions after HPB and gastric oncologic surgery, travel distance and timing are major determinants of care fragmentation. However, these variables are not associated with mortality, nor is annual hospital surgical volume after risk-adjustment. This information could be used to determine safe sites of care for readmissions after HPB and gastric surgery. Further analysis is needed to explore the relationship between complications, the site of care, and readmission mortality.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Social and Clinical Correlates of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Medicare Beneficiaries With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer From 2004-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To assess social and clinical correlates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of SEER-Medicare (2004-2015) patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated by radical cystectomy were stratified into 3-groups: standard of care NAC (cisplatin-based combination), non-standard of care NAC, and upfront cystectomy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess social, demographic and clinical correlates of each treatment category. Survival analyses were performed to compare propensity matched treatment groups. RESULTS: In total, 6214 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 21 [IQR 7-54] months. NAC utilization increased from 10.7% to 39.1%, between 2004 and 2015, largely due to increased use of standard of care regimens. The most commonly used nonstandard regimen was gemcitabine/carboplatin (50.2%). Older age, Hispanic and Black race, lower socioeconomic status, and contraindications to cisplatin were associated with increased odds of receiving nonstandard of care NAC compared to standard of care. Standard of care NAC was associated with improved overall survival HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76, 0.94) and HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63, 0.89) compared to both upfront cystectomy and nonstandard of care NAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: NAC utilization has increased to nearly 40%; however, the use of non-standard of care NAC regimen have persisted (~8%). Cisplatin-ineligibility, older age, race/ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic status were correlated with nonstandard of care NAC, which provided no clinical benefit at the risk of potential harm. In accordance with current clinical guidelines, cisplatin-ineligible patients should be considered for timely upfront cystectomy or novel clinical trials.

Economic evaluation of adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer: systematic review and quality assessment.

INTRODUCTION: As the availability of new economic evaluations (EE) on adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC) with HER2-positive since last search and other EEs missed warrant a more extensive review, this study aimed to systematically review EEs of adjuvant trastuzumab compared with chemotherapy alone for HER2-positive EBC. AREA COVERED: The search was performed in February 2019 using MEDLINE and Scopus. Reviewers independently selected studies based on eligibility criteria, extracted data, assessed quality of reporting, and appraised quality of data sources. EXPERT OPINION: 22 studies were included which were from high-income (HICs) and upper-middle income countries (UMICs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from HICs were within their cost-effectiveness thresholds and ranged from 6,018 to 78,929 USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. ICERs from UMICs mostly exceeded their thresholds ranging from 3,526 to 174,901 USD per QALY gained. Evidence shows cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab for HER2-positive EBC in HICs. There were no methodological variations. The extent and adequacy of reporting were high. The quality of data sources was moderate to high. The quality of future EEs can be improved by enhancing the reporting quality, by using context-based data and real-world efficacy data, which would impact cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Benefit Implication of Gene Expression Profiling and Adjuvant Therapy in Stage IIIA Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Indiscriminate use of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIA melanoma is controversial. We sought to model the clinical impact and cost of implementing a gene expression profile (GEP) test to guide adjuvant therapy. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov decision-analysis model was created to represent resected stage IIIA melanoma with 3 treatment options: observation (OBS), adjuvant pembrolizumab for all patients (ALL), and selective adjuvant therapy (SEL). In the SEL option, only high-risk patients based on GEP stratification were treated with pembrolizumab. Cost of adjuvant therapy was normalized to reflect Medicare reimbursement schedules. The primary outcome was cost per mortality avoided at 10 years. RESULTS: Model projections for 10-year overall survival were 68% for OBS, 73% for SEL, and 76% for ALL. The estimated incremental cost-per-mortality-avoided (compared to OBS) was $2.1 million for SEL and $2.4 million for ALL. These translate to costs of $583.0K and $697.1K per life-year for the SEL and ALL strategies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA melanoma is costly, and risk-stratification by GEP only marginally improves the value of therapy.

Circulating tumor DNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer (MEDOCC-CrEATE): study protocol for a trial within a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate detection of patients with minimal residual disease (MRD) after surgery for stage II colon cancer (CC) remains an urgent unmet clinical need to improve selection of patients who might benefit form adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is indicative for MRD and has high predictive value for recurrent disease. The MEDOCC-CrEATE trial investigates how many stage II CC patients with detectable ctDNA after surgery will accept ACT and whether ACT reduces the risk of recurrence in these patients. METHODS/DESIGN: MEDOCC-CrEATE follows the 'trial within cohorts' (TwiCs) design. Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are included in the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort (PLCRC) and give informed consent for collection of clinical data, tissue and blood samples, and consent for future randomization. MEDOCC-CrEATE is a subcohort within PLCRC consisting of 1320 stage II CC patients without indication for ACT according to current guidelines, who are randomized 1:1 into an experimental and a control arm. In the experimental arm, post-surgery blood samples and tissue are analyzed for tissue-informed detection of plasma ctDNA, using the PGDx elio™ platform. Patients with detectable ctDNA will be offered ACT consisting of 8 cycles of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin while patients without detectable ctDNA and patients in the control group will standard follow-up according to guideline. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients receiving ACT when ctDNA is detectable after resection. The main secondary outcome is 2-year recurrence rate (RR), but also includes 5-year RR, disease free survival, overall survival, time to recurrence, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Data will be analyzed by intention to treat. DISCUSSION: The MEDOCC-CrEATE trial will provide insight into the willingness of stage II CC patients to be treated with ACT guided by ctDNA biomarker testing and whether ACT will prevent recurrences in a high-risk population. Use of the TwiCs design provides the opportunity to randomize patients before ctDNA measurement, avoiding ethical dilemmas of ctDNA status disclosure in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL6281/NTR6455 . Registered 18 May 2017, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6281.

Development of a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There has been no comprehensive study determining the financial burden of breast cancer in the South African (SA) public sector. OBJECTIVES: To develop a method to determine the cost of breast cancer treatment with chemotherapy per episode of care and to quantify the associated costs relating to chemotherapy at Groote Schuur Hospital (GSH), a government hospital in SA. These costs included costs associated with the management of adverse events arising from chemotherapy. METHODS: Retrospective patient-level data were collected for 200 patients from electronic databases and patient folders between 2013 and 2015. Direct medical costs were determined from the health funder's perspective. The information collected was categorised into the following cost components: chemotherapy medicines, support medicines, administration of chemotherapy, laboratory tests, radiology scans and imaging, doctor consultations and adverse events. Time-and-motion studies were conducted on a set of new patients and the data obtained were used for the study sample of 200 patients. All the above costs were used to determine the cost of chemotherapy per episode of care. The episode of care was defined as the care provided from 2 months prior to the date of commencing chemotherapy (pre-chemotherapy phase), during chemotherapy (treatment phase) and until 6 months after the date when the last cycle of chemotherapy was administered (follow-up phase). RESULTS: A method was developed to determine the episode-of-care costs for breast cancer at GSH. The total direct medical cost for treatment of breast cancer at GSH for 200 patients was ZAR3 154 877, and the average episode-of-care cost per patient was ZAR15 774. The average cost of management of adverse events arising from the various treatment modalities was ZAR13 133 per patient. It was found that the cost of treating a patient with adverse events was 1.8 times higher than the cost of treating a patient without adverse events. Of the patients, 86.5% managed to complete their prescribed chemotherapy treatment cycles, and the average cost of treatment of these patients was 1.3 times more than the average cost for patients who could not complete their treatment, based on the number of treatment cycles received. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive method to determine the costs associated with breast cancer management per episode of care was developed, and costs were quantified at GSH according to the treatment protocol used at the hospital.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Modeling Personalized Adjuvant TreaTment in EaRly stage coloN cancer (PATTERN).

AIM: To develop a decision model for the population-level evaluation of strategies to improve the selection of stage II colon cancer (CC) patients who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A Markov cohort model with a one-month cycle length and a lifelong time horizon was developed. Five health states were included; diagnosis, 90-day mortality, death other causes, recurrence and CC death. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to parameterize the model. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival models including relevant clinical and pathological covariates. Subsequently, biomarker status was implemented using external data. Treatment effect was incorporated using pooled trial data. Model development, data sources used, parameter estimation, and internal and external validation are described in detail. To illustrate the use of the model, three example strategies were evaluated in which allocation of treatment was based on (A) 100% adherence to the Dutch guidelines, (B) observed adherence to guideline recommendations and (C) a biomarker-driven strategy. RESULTS: Overall, the model showed good internal and external validity. Age, tumor growth, tumor sidedness, evaluated lymph nodes, and biomarker status were included as covariates. For the example strategies, the model predicted 83, 87 and 77 CC deaths after 5 years in a cohort of 1000 patients for strategies A, B and C, respectively. CONCLUSION: This model can be used to evaluate strategies for the allocation of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II CC patients. In future studies, the model will be used to estimate population-level long-term health gain and cost-effectiveness of biomarker-based selection strategies.

The Efficacy of Software to Help Patients Understand Drug for Adjuvant Treatment for Breast Cancer: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

We assessed the usefulness of ChemoCalc, a software package for calculating drug costs, in helping patients understand these costs. We randomly assigned, in a 1 : 1 ratio, 20 women who had undergone surgery for early breast cancer to a group that discussed adjuvant treatment with their physicians using the ChemoCalc software (ChemoCalc group) or a group that discussed adjuvant treatment without ChemoCalc (Usual Explanation group). The participants completed a five-grade evaluation questionnaire after these discussions. The primary endpoint was the intergroup comparison of the questionnaire scores regarding participants' understanding of their treatment-associated drug costs. Median age was not significantly different between the ChemoCalc group and Usual Explanation group (57 vs. 50, respectively; p=0.27). Patients in the ChemoCalc group had a significantly higher perceived level of understanding of the drug cost than those in the Usual Explanation group (5 [4-5] vs. 2.5 [1-5], respectively; p=0.002). Scores related to the patients' perception that understanding drug costs is an important part of breast cancer treatment were also higher in the ChemoCalc group than the Usual Explanation group (5 [2-5] vs. 3 [1-5], respectively; p=0.049). ChemoCalc was found to be useful for understanding drug costs.