ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×109 TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278887.).
Subject(s)
Immunotherapy, Adoptive , Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating , Melanoma , Humans , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy , Ipilimumab/adverse effects , Melanoma/drug therapyABSTRACT
Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Academies and Institutes , Consensus , Socioeconomic FactorsABSTRACT
Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (xÌ: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (xÌ: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Europe , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Italy , FranceABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer contains cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and chemotherapy. Achieving successful CRS (≤ 1 cm residual disease) is prognostically important, but may not be feasible peri-operatively while still risking complications. Therefore, patients' treatment expectations are important to discuss. We investigated patient considerations for interval CRS. METHODS: Patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer planned for interval CRS completed a questionnaire about the impact of chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and becoming care-dependent on decision-making regarding CRS. The questionnaire included a vignette study, in which patients repeatedly chose between two treatment scenarios with varying levels for chance of successful CRS, survival benefit and risk of complications including stoma. Patient preferences were analyzed, including differences between patients aged < 70 and ≥ 70 years. RESULTS: Among 85 included patients, 31 (37%) patients considered interval CRS worthwhile irrespective of survival benefit and 33 (39%) irrespective of chance of successful surgery. However, 34 patients (41%) considered interval CRS only worthwhile if survival benefit was > 12 months, while 41 (49%) thought so if chance of successful surgery was ≥ 25%. Older patients considered these factors more important. Overall, 27% considered becoming permanently dependent of home care unacceptable. In the vignette study (n = 72) risk of complications and stoma were considered less important than chance of successful CRS and survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Survival benefit, chance of successful surgery and becoming care-dependent are important factors in patient's decision for interval CRS, while risk of complications and stoma are less important. Our results are useful in shared decision-making for interval CRS in ovarian cancer.
Subject(s)
Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures , Ovarian Neoplasms , Patient Preference , Humans , Female , Ovarian Neoplasms/surgery , Ovarian Neoplasms/pathology , Ovarian Neoplasms/psychology , Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures/methods , Patient Preference/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , Neoplasm Staging , Decision Making , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/surgery , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/mortality , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/pathologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries. METHODS: An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers. RESULTS: Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation. CONCLUSION: Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.
Subject(s)
Head and Neck Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Humans , Health Personnel , Delivery of Health Care , LanguageABSTRACT
Background Guidelines recommend annual surveillance imaging after diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Guideline adherence has not been characterized in a contemporary cohort. Purpose To identify uptake and determinants of surveillance imaging in women who underwent treatment for DCIS. Materials and Methods A stratified random sample of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery for primary DCIS between 2008 and 2014 was retrospectively selected from 1330 facilities in the United States. Imaging examinations were recorded from date of diagnosis until first distant recurrence, death, loss to follow-up, or end of study (November 2018). Imaging after treatment was categorized into 10 12-month periods starting 6 months after diagnosis. Primary outcome was per-period receipt of asymptomatic surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, or US). Secondary outcome was diagnosis of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Multivariable logistic regression with repeated measures and generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of imaging. Rates of diagnosis with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were compared between women who did and those who did not undergo imaging in the 6-18-month period after diagnosis using inverse probability-weighted Kaplan-Meier estimators. Results A total of 12 559 women (median age, 60 years; IQR, 52-69 years) were evaluated. Uptake of surveillance imaging was 75% in the first period and decreased over time (P < .001). Across the first 5 years after treatment, 52% of women participated in consistent annual surveillance. Surveillance was lower in Black (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.88; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.94; P = .004) women than in White women. Women who underwent surveillance in the first period had a higher 6-year rate of diagnosis of invasive cancer (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.9) than those who did not (1.1%; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.4; difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: 0.1, 1.0; P = .03). Conclusion Half of women did not consistently adhere to imaging surveillance guidelines across the first 5 years after treatment, with racial disparities in adherence rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rahbar and Dontchos in this issue.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating , Female , Humans , United States , Middle Aged , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Mammography/methods , Mastectomy, Segmental , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell rescue (HDCT) is a promising treatment for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, homologous recombination deficient (HRD) breast cancer. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are currently under investigation in an international multicenter randomized controlled trial. To increase the chance of successful introduction of HDCT into daily clinical practice, we aimed to identify relevant factors for smooth implementation using an early comprehensive assessment framework. METHODS: This is a qualitative, multi-stakeholder, exploratory research using semi-structured interviews guided by the Constructive Technology Assessment model, which evaluates the quality of a novel health technology by clinical, economic, patient-related, and organizational factors. Stakeholders were recruited by purposeful stratified sampling and interviewed until sufficient content saturation was reached. Two researchers independently created themes, categories, and subcategories by following inductive coding steps, these were verified by a third researcher. RESULTS: We interviewed 28 stakeholders between June 2019 and April 2021. In total, five overarching themes and seventeen categories were identified. Important findings for optimal implementation included the structural identification and referral of all eligible patients, early integration of supportive care, multidisciplinary collaboration between- and within hospitals, (de)centralization of treatment aspects, the provision of information for patients and healthcare professionals, and compliance to new regulation for the BRCA1-like test. CONCLUSIONS: In anticipation of a positive reimbursement decision, we recommend to take the highlighted implementation factors into consideration. This might expedite and guide high-quality equitable access to HDCT for patients with stage III, HER2-negative, HRD breast cancer in the Netherlands.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Health Personnel , Homologous Recombination , Stem Cells , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness, budget impact (BI), and impact of uncertainty of future developments concerning whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as a clinical diagnostic test compared with standard of care (SoC) in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: A total of 3 likely scenarios to take place within 5 years (according to experts) were simulated using a previously developed, peer reviewed, and published decision model. The scenarios concerned "WGS results used for treatment selection" (scenario 1), "WGS-based biomarker for immunotherapy" (scenario 2), and "off-label drug approval for WGS results" (scenario 3). Two diagnostic strategies of the original model, "SoC" and "WGS as a diagnostic test" (base model), were used to compare our scenarios with. Outcomes were reported for the base model, all scenarios separately, combined (combined unweighted), and weighted by likelihood (combined weighted). Cost-effectiveness, BI, and value of information analyses were performed for WGS compared with SoC. RESULTS: Total costs and quality-adjusted life-years for SoC in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer were 149 698 and 1.235. Incremental outcomes of WGS were 1529/0.002(base model), -222/0.020(scenario 1), -2576/0.023(scenario 2), 388/0.024(scenario 3), -5041/0.060(combined unweighted), and -1715/0.029(combined weighted). The annual BI for adopting WGS for this population in The Netherlands ranged between 682 million (combined unweighted) and 714 million (base model). The consequences of uncertainty amounted to 3.4 million for all scenarios (combined weighted) and to 699 000 for the diagnostic yield of WGS alone (combined weighted). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is likely for WGS to become cost-effective within the near future if it identifies more patients with actionable targets and show the impact of uncertainty regarding its diagnostic yield. Modeling future scenarios can be useful to consider early adoption of WGS while timely anticipating on unforeseen developments before final conclusions are reached.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/genetics , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/genetics , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Off-Label Use , Netherlands , Quality-Adjusted Life YearsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Results from active surveillance trials for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) will not be available for > 10 years. A model based on real-world data (RWD) can demonstrate the comparative impact of non-intervention for women with low-risk features. METHODS: Multi-state models were developed using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data for three treatment strategies (no local treatment, breast conserving surgery [BCS], BCS + radiotherapy [RT]), and for women with DCIS low-risk features. Eligible cases included women aged ≥ 40 years, diagnosed with primary DCIS between 1992 and 2016. Five mutually exclusive health states were modelled: DCIS, ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) ≤ 5 years and > 5 years post-DCIS diagnosis, contralateral IBC, death preceded by and death not preceded by IBC. Propensity score-weighted Cox models assessed effects of treatment, age, diagnosis year, grade, ER status, and race. RESULTS: Data on n = 85,982 women were used. Increased risk of iIBC ≤ 5 years post-DCIS was demonstrated for ages 40-49 (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.86, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.34-2.57 compared to age 50-69), grade 3 lesions (HR 1.42, 95%CI 1.05-1.91) compared to grade 2, lesion size ≥ 2 cm (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.23-2.25), and Black race (HR 2.52, 95%CI 1.83-3.48 compared to White). According to the multi-state model, propensity score-matched women with low-risk features who had not died or experienced any subsequent breast event by 10 years, had a predicted probability of iIBC as first event of 3.02% for no local treatment, 1.66% for BCS, and 0.42% for BCS+RT. CONCLUSION: RWD from the SEER registry showed that women with primary DCIS and low-risk features demonstrate minimal differences by treatment strategy in experiencing subsequent breast events. There may be opportunity to de-escalate treatment for certain women with low-risk features: Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women aged 50-69 at diagnosis, with ER+, grade 1 + 2, < 2 cm DCIS lesions.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/radiotherapy , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery , Female , Humans , Mastectomy, Segmental , Middle Aged , Registries , RiskABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In oncology, Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is not yet widely implemented due to uncertainties such as the required infrastructure and expertise, costs and reimbursements, and unknown pan-cancer clinical utility. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate possible future developments facilitating or impeding the use of WGS as a molecular diagnostic in oncology through scenario drafting. METHODS: A four-step process was adopted for scenario drafting. First, the literature was searched for barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of WGS. Second, they were prioritized by international experts, and third, combined into coherent scenarios. Fourth, the scenarios were implemented in an online survey and their likelihood of taking place within 5 years was elicited from another group of experts. Based on the minimum, maximum, and most likely (mode) parameters, individual Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) probability density functions were determined. Subsequently, individual opinions were aggregated by performing unweighted linear pooling, from which summary statistics were extracted and reported. RESULTS: Sixty-two unique barriers and facilitators were extracted from 70 articles. Price, clinical utility, and turnaround time of WGS were ranked as the most important aspects. Nine scenarios were developed and scored on likelihood by 18 experts. The scenario about introducing WGS as a clinical diagnostic with a lower price, shorter turnaround time, and improved degree of actionability, scored the highest likelihood (median: 68.3%). Scenarios with low likelihoods and strong consensus were about better treatment responses to more actionable targets (26.1%), and the effect of centralizing WGS (24.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current expert opinions, the implementation of WGS as a clinical diagnostic in oncology is heavily dependent on the price, clinical utility (both in terms of identifying actionable targets as in adding sufficient value in subsequent treatment), and turnaround time. These aspects and the optimal way of service provision are the main drivers for the implementation of WGS and should be focused on in further research. More knowledge regarding these factors is needed to inform strategic decision making regarding the implementation of WGS, which warrants support from all relevant stakeholders.
Subject(s)
Consensus , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Whole Genome Sequencing/methods , Data Analysis , Efficiency , Forecasting , Health Plan Implementation , High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing , Humans , Neoplasms/genetics , Neoplasms/therapy , Reproducibility of Results , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors , Uncertainty , Whole Genome Sequencing/economics , Whole Genome Sequencing/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.
Subject(s)
Aftercare/methods , Anxiety/epidemiology , Cancer Survivors/psychology , General Practitioners/organization & administration , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Aftercare/economics , Aftercare/organization & administration , Aftercare/standards , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/prevention & control , Anxiety/psychology , Continuity of Patient Care , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Feasibility Studies , General Practitioners/economics , Guideline Adherence/economics , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Kallikreins/blood , Male , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Netherlands/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/standards , Professional Role , Program Evaluation , Prospective Studies , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Quality of Life , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Secondary Care/economics , Secondary Care/methods , Secondary Care/organization & administration , Secondary Care/standardsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), with and without therapist support, is effective in reducing treatment-induced menopausal symptoms and perceived impact of hot flushes and night sweats (HF/NS) in breast cancer survivors. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-utility, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of both iCBT formats compared to a waiting list control group from the Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed with a 5-year time horizon. Costs and health outcomes were measured alongside a randomized controlled clinical trial and included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), overall levels of menopausal symptoms, and perceived impact of HF/NS. Uncertainty was examined using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, together with a scenario analysis incorporating a different perspective. RESULTS: iCBT was slightly more expensive than the waiting list control, but also more effective, resulting in incremental cost-utility ratios of 23,331/QALY and 11,277/QALY for the guided and self-managed formats, respectively. A significant reduction in overall levels of menopausal symptoms or perceived impact of HF/NS resulted in incremental costs between 1460 and 1525 for the guided and 500-753 for the self-managed format. The estimated annual budget impact for the Netherlands was 192,990 for the guided and 74,592 for the self-managed format. CONCLUSION: Based on the current trial data, the results indicate that both guided and self-managed iCBT are cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay threshold of well below 30,000/QALY. Additionally, self-managed iCBT is the most cost-effective strategy and has a lower impact on healthcare budgets.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Cancer Survivors/psychology , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/economics , Internet , Menopause, Premature/physiology , Breast Neoplasms/economics , Budgets , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Health Expenditures , Hot Flashes/therapy , Humans , Hyperhidrosis/therapy , Menopause, Premature/psychology , Netherlands , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Waiting ListsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/rehabilitation , Head and Neck Neoplasms/rehabilitation , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Observational Studies as Topic , Program Development/economics , Quality of Life , Activities of Daily Living , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/pathology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Head and Neck Neoplasms/pathology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Netherlands , Patient Satisfaction , Prospective Studies , Return to WorkABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Most breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy are candidates for breast reconstruction. Deciding about breast reconstruction is complex and the preference-sensitive nature of this decision requires an approach of shared decision making between patient and doctor. Women considering breast reconstruction have expressed a need for decision support. We developed an online patient decision aid (pDA) to support decision making in women considering immediate breast reconstruction. The primary aim of this study is to assess the impact of the pDA in reducing decisional conflict, and more generally, on the decision-making process and the decision quality. Additionally, we will investigate the pDA's impact on health outcomes, explore predictors, and assess its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A multicenter, two-armed randomized controlled trial (1:1) will be conducted. Women with breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ who will undergo a mastectomy and are eligible for immediate breast reconstruction will be invited to participate. The intervention group will receive access to the online pDA, whereas the control group will receive a widely available free information leaflet on breast reconstruction. Participants will complete online questionnaires at: baseline (T0), 1 week after consultation with a plastic surgeon (T1), and 3 (T2) and 12 months (T3) after surgery. The primary outcome is decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include other measures reflecting the decision-making process and decision quality (e.g., decision regret), patient-reported health outcomes (e.g., satisfaction with the breasts) and costs. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence about the impact of an online pDA for women who will undergo mastectomy and are deciding about breast reconstruction. It will contribute to the knowledge on how to optimally support women in making this difficult decision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03791138 ).
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/surgery , Decision Support Techniques , Mammaplasty , Mastectomy , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating/psychology , Clinical Protocols , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Decision Making , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Patient Participation , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An emerging immunotherapy is infusion of tumor infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL), with objective response rates of around 50% versus 19% for ipilimumab. As an Advanced Therapeutic Medicinal Products (ATMP), TIL is highly personalized and complex therapy. It requests substantial upfront investments from the hospital in: expensive lab-equipment, staff expertise and training, as well as extremely tight hospital logistics. Therefore, an early health economic modelling study, as part of a Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) program, was performed. METHODS: We used a Markov decision model to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years; QALYs) for TIL versus ipilimumab for second line treatment in metastatic melanoma patients from a Dutch health care perspective over a life long time horizon. Three mutually exclusive health states (stable disease (responders)), progressive disease and death) were modelled. To inform further research prioritization, Value of Information (VOI) analysis was performed. RESULTS: TIL is expected to generate more QALYs compared to ipilimumab (0.45 versus 0.38 respectively) at lower incremental cost (presently 81,140 versus 94,705 respectively) resulting in a dominant ICER (less costly and more effective). Based on current information TIL is dominating ipilimumab and has a probability of 86% for being cost effective at a cost/QALY threshold of 80,000. The Expected Value of Perfect Information (EVPI) amounted to 3 M. CONCLUSIONS: TIL is expected to have the highest probability of being cost-effective in second line treatment for advanced melanoma compared to ipilimumab. To reduce decision uncertainty, a clinical trial investigating e.g. costs and survival seems most valuable. This is currently being undertaken as part of a CED program in the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with Denmark.
Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis , Immunotherapy/economics , Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating/immunology , Melanoma/drug therapy , Antibodies, Monoclonal/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal/economics , Denmark/epidemiology , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Ipilimumab/administration & dosage , Ipilimumab/economics , Lymphocytes, Tumor-Infiltrating/transplantation , Male , Melanoma/economics , Melanoma/pathology , Models, Economic , Netherlands/epidemiology , Quality-Adjusted Life YearsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To inform decisions about the design and priority of further studies of emerging predictive biomarkers of high-dose alkylating chemotherapy (HDAC) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) using value-of-information analysis. METHODS: A state transition model compared treating women with TNBC with current clinical practice and four biomarker strategies to personalize HDAC: 1) BRCA1-like profile by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) testing; 2) BRCA1-like profile by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) testing; 3) strategy 1 followed by X-inactive specific transcript gene (XIST) and tumor suppressor p53 binding protein (53BP1) testing; and 4) strategy 2 followed by XIST and 53BP1 testing, from a Dutch societal perspective and a 20-year time horizon. Input data came from literature and expert opinions. We assessed the expected value of partial perfect information, the expected value of sample information, and the expected net benefit of sampling for potential ancillary studies of an ongoing randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT01057069). RESULTS: The expected value of partial perfect information indicated that further research should be prioritized to the parameter group including "biomarkers' prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV), and treatment response rates (TRRs) in biomarker-negative patients and patients with TNBC" (639 million), followed by utilities (48 million), costs (40 million), and transition probabilities (TPs) (30 million). By setting up four ancillary studies to the ongoing RCT, data on 1) TP and MLPA prevalence, PPV, and TRR; 2) aCGH and aCGH/MLPA plus XIST and 53BP1 prevalence, PPV, and TRR; 3) utilities; and 4) costs could be simultaneously collected (optimal size = 3000). CONCLUSIONS: Further research on predictive biomarkers for HDAC should focus on gathering data on TPs, prevalence, PPV, TRRs, utilities, and costs from the four ancillary studies to the ongoing RCT.
Subject(s)
Biomarkers, Tumor/economics , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/economics , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/economics , Adult , Alkylating Agents/economics , Alkylating Agents/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Decision Support Techniques , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Health Priorities/economics , Humans , Markov Chains , Middle Aged , Netherlands/epidemiology , RNA, Long Noncoding , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Research/economics , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Tumor Suppressor p53-Binding Protein 1 , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/geneticsABSTRACT
Previous studies have shown that a "Preventive Exercise Program" (PREP) is cost-effective compared to the standard exercise program provided in "Usual Care" (UC) in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. The current paper specifically estimates the cost-effectiveness of the TheraBite jaw rehabilitation device (TB) which is used as part of the PREP, compared to Speech Language Pathology (SLP) sessions as part of UC, and herewith intents to inform reimbursement discussions regarding the TheraBite device. Costs and outcomes [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of the TB compared to SLP were estimated using a Markov model of advanced head and neck cancer patients. Secondary outcome variables were trismus, feeding substitutes, facial pain, and pneumonia. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a health care perspective of the Netherlands, with a time horizon of 2 years. The total health care costs per patient were estimated to amount to 5,129 for the TB strategy and 6,915 for the SLP strategy. Based on the current data, the TB strategy yielded more quality-adjusted life-years (1.28) compared to the SLP strategy (1.24). Thus, the TB strategy seems more effective (+0.04) and less costly (-1,786) than the SLP only strategy. At the prevailing threshold of 20,000/QALY the probability for the TB strategy being cost-effective compared to SLP was 70 %. To conclude, analysis of presently available data indicates that TB is expected to be cost-effective compared to SLP in a preventive exercise program for concomitant chemo-radiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer patients.
Subject(s)
Chemoradiotherapy/adverse effects , Deglutition Disorders/prevention & control , Exercise Therapy , Head and Neck Neoplasms , Chemoradiotherapy/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Decision Support Techniques , Deglutition Disorders/etiology , Exercise Therapy/economics , Exercise Therapy/instrumentation , Exercise Therapy/methods , Female , Head and Neck Neoplasms/economics , Head and Neck Neoplasms/pathology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Economic , Neoplasm Staging , Netherlands , Quality-Adjusted Life YearsABSTRACT
The beneficial physical and psychosocial effects of heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs) for pulmonary rehabilitation of laryngectomy patients are well evidenced. However, cost-effectiveness in terms of costs per additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) has not yet been investigated. Therefore, a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of using HMEs versus usual care (UC) (including stoma covers, suction system and/or external humidifier) for patients after laryngectomy was performed. Primary outcomes were costs, QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Secondary outcomes were pulmonary infections, and sleeping problems. The analysis was performed from a health care perspective of Poland, using a time horizon of 10 years and cycle length of 1 year. Transition probabilities were derived from various sources, amongst others a Polish randomized clinical trial. Quality of life data was derived from an Italian study on similar patients. Data on frequencies and mortality-related tracheobronchitis and/or pneumonia were derived from a Europe-wide survey amongst head and neck cancer experts. Substantial differences in quality-adjusted survival between the use of HMEs (3.63 QALYs) versus UC (2.95 QALYs) were observed. Total health care costs/patient were 39,553 PLN (9465 Euro) for the HME strategy and 4889 PLN (1168 Euro) for the UC strategy. HME use resulted in fewer pulmonary infections, and less sleeping problems. We could conclude that given the Polish threshold of 99,000 PLN/QALY, using HMEs is cost-effective compared to UC, resulting in 51,326 PLN/QALY (12,264 Euro/QALY) gained for patients after total laryngectomy. For the hospital period alone (2 weeks), HMEs were cost-saving: less costly and more effective.
Subject(s)
Health Care Costs , Laryngectomy/rehabilitation , Postoperative Care/economics , Respiratory Therapy/economics , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Hot Temperature/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Poland , Quality of Life , Quality-Adjusted Life Years , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The objective of this population-based study was to assess patient, physician and tumour determinants associated with positive surgical margins after prostatectomy, and to assess the effects of positive surgical margins on prostate cancer-specific survival. METHODS: We included 1'254 prostate cancer patients recorded at the Geneva Cancer Registry who had radical prostatectomy during 1990-2008. To assess factors associated with positive margins, we used logistic regression. We assessed the effects of positive margins on prostate cancer-specific survival by Cox proportional hazard models accounting for numerous other prognostics factors including prostate and tumour volume, the total percentage of tumour, radiotherapy, surgical approach and surgeon's caseload. RESULTS: Among men undergoing prostatectomy, 479 (38%) had positive margins. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, period, clinical- and pathological T stage, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score and percentage of tumour in the prostate were significantly associated to positive margins. Ten-year prostate cancer-specific survival was 96.6% for the negative margins group and 92.0% for the positive margins group (log rank p = 0.008). In the Cox survival analysis adjusted for tumour characteristics, surgical margin status per se was not an independent prognostic factor while age, pathological T, PSA level and Gleason score remained associated with prostate cancer-specific survival. CONCLUSIONS: More aggressive tumour characteristics were strong determinants for positive margins. Furthermore, surgical margin status per se was not an independent prognostic factor for prostate cancer-specific survival after adjusting by the gravity of the disease in the multivariate analysis.
Subject(s)
Prostatectomy , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Aged , Case-Control Studies , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Grading , Neoplasm Staging , Proportional Hazards Models , Prostate/pathology , Prostate/surgery , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatectomy/statistics & numerical data , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Socioeconomic Factors , Survival Analysis , Tumor BurdenABSTRACT
Laryngectomized patients, lacking conditioning of the breathing air in the upper respiratory tract, have reported considerable pulmonary complaints. It is assumed that these patients also run a higher risk of developing severe respiratory infections. Unfortunately, there is little scientific information available about the occurrence of respiratory infections and related health costs in these patients with and without the use of an HME. Therefore, the occurrence of respiratory infections in laryngectomized patients was investigated in the Netherlands Cancer Institute and by means of a survey among head and neck oncology surgeons throughout Europe. The number of tracheobronchitis and/or pneumonia events was retrospectively scored between 1973 and 2013 in medical records of 89 laryngectomized patients treated in our institute. To assess expert experiences and opinions regarding these pulmonary problems, a study-specific survey was developed. The survey was sent by email to head and neck surgeons from ten different countries. In the medical record study, an average of 0.129 respiratory infections per patient/year was found in non-HME users and 0.092 in HME users. In the survey (response rate HN surgeons 20 %; countries 90 %) 0.285 episodes per patient/year in non-HME users was statistically higher than the 0.066 episodes per patient/year in HME users. The average mortality in the HME user group per entire career of each physician was estimated at 0.0045, and for the non-HME user group this was 0.0152. There is a tendency that the number of tracheobronchitis and pneumonia episodes in non-HME users is higher than in HME users.