Trends in HR+ metastatic breast cancer survival before and after CDK4/6 inhibitor introduction in the United States: a SEER registry analysis of patients with HER2- and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have improved patient survival in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in clinical trials and real-world studies. However, investigations of survival gains in broader HR+/HER2- mBC populations using epidemiological approaches are limited. METHODS: This retrospective study used SEER registry data to assess breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in patients diagnosed with HR+/HER2- de novo mBC from 2010 to 2019. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare BCSS in patients diagnosed before (2010‒2013 with follow-up to 2014) and after (2015‒2018 with follow-up to 2019) the 2015 guideline recommendations for CDK4/6i use. A comparison was made to patients with HR+/HER2-positive (HER2+) de novo mBC, for which no major guideline changes occurred during 2015-2018. RESULTS: Data from 11,467 women with HR+/HER2- mBC and 3260 women with HR+/HER2+ mBC were included. After baseline characteristic adjustment, patients with HR+/HER2- mBC diagnosed post-2015 (n = 6163), had an approximately 10% reduction in risk of BC-specific death compared with patients diagnosed pre-2015 (n = 5304; HR = 0.895, p < 0.0001). Conversely, no significant change was observed in HR+/HER2+ BCSS post-2015 (n = 1798) versus pre-2015 (n = 1462). Similar results were found in patients aged ≥ 65 years. CONCLUSION: Using one of the largest US population-based longitudinal cancer databases, significant improvements in BCSS were noted in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC post-2015 versus pre-2015, potentially due to the introduction of CDK4/6i post-2015. No significant improvement in BCSS was observed in patients with HR+/HER2+ mBC post-2015 versus pre-2015, likely due to the availability of HER2-directed therapies in both time periods.

Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

The Role of Physician Specialty in the Underutilization of Standard-of-Care Treatment Intensification in Patients With Metastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluate utilization of treatment intensification of androgen deprivation therapy with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor/docetaxel for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients across physician specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study identified patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in the Optum Research Database between 2014 and 2019. Adult men with ≥1 claim for metastatic disease within 90 days before or any time after the first prostate cancer claim who received androgen deprivation therapy were included. Physician specialty, determined from medical/pharmacy claims during each line of therapy, was categorized as urologist only, oncologist only, both (urologists and oncologists), or other (other specialties). Treatment intensification and patient characteristics were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 4,675 patients, 16% were treated by urologists only, 20% by oncologists only, 63% by both, and 1.1% by others. The most frequent first line of therapy was androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation nonsteroidal antiandrogens (>50%). Androgen deprivation therapy + docetaxel use declined over time, while androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor pathway inhibitor use increased. Patients seen by oncologists or both were younger, had fewer comorbidities, and were likelier to receive treatment intensification compared to those treated by urologists. By 2019, however, treatment intensification remained <40% from oncologists only or both, and <15% from urologists only. In the second and third lines of therapy, androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor pathway inhibitor was the most prescribed regimen across specialties (>50%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification was underused in first lines of therapy across urology and oncology specialties despite evidence of improved survival. In subsequent lines, androgen deprivation therapy + androgen receptor pathway inhibitor was prescribed more frequently across specialties. These results underscore the need for earlier treatment intensification by urologists and oncologists.

Plain language summary: Does the amount of time it takes for prostate-specific antigen to double affect how long men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer live and their healthcare costs?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a plain language summary of a research article originally published in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. The original article described the effect of rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels on how long men with a type of advanced prostate cancer live and their healthcare costs. The prostate is a part of the male body that helps make semen. PSA is a protein produced by the prostate that can show how advanced prostate cancer has become. One measure of prostate cancer growth is assessing how quickly a patient's PSA level doubles. This is known as the PSA doubling time (PSADT). People with a shorter PSADT usually have faster-growing prostate cancer compared with people who have a longer PSADT of more than 12 months (long PSADT). Researchers wanted to know if PSADT can predict cancer spread (known as metastasis) or death for people with a type of advanced prostate cancer called non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Researchers also wanted to know if PSADT can predict healthcare costs. This could help doctors choose the right treatment for their patients with nmCRPC. This was a real-world study, not a clinical trial. This means that researchers looked at what happened when men received the treatments prescribed by their own doctor as part of their usual healthcare treatment. In this study, researchers used insurance claim information. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers looked at information for 2800 men with nmCRPC. Six out of every 10 men (60%) had a long PSADT of more than 12 months. Researchers found that it took longer for the cancer to spread to other parts of the body in men with a longer PSADT than men with PSADT of 12 months or less. Researchers also found that men with a longer PSADT lived longer than men with PSADT of 12 months or less. The long PSADT group had fewer healthcare visits overall than men with PSADT of 10 months or less. Over time, it cost less to treat men with a long PSADT than men with PSADT of 10 months or less. Generally, if PSADT was shorter, patients tended to do worse. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: In this real-world study, researchers found that men with nmCRPC lived longer and had lower healthcare costs if they had a long PSADT of more than 12 months compared with men who had a shorter PSADT. Men with nmCRPC and a shorter PSADT may benefit from approved treatments that slow cancer spread and help them live longer. However, these treatments may have side effects and cost more than standard treatment. Doctors take all these things into account when choosing treatments for their patients. Most men in this study had a long PSADT of more than 12 months. Standard treatment may be the right choice for them because they are more likely to have better outcomes than men with a shorter PSADT.

The patient's perspective on treatment with dacomitinib: patient-reported outcomes from the Phase III trial ARCHER 1050.

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of first-line therapy for advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Here, we compare the relative clinical efficacy of EGFR-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) for EGFR-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors systematically searched 11 electronic databases from January 2004 to August 2018 for randomized controlled trials measuring clinical efficacy of first-line TKI therapies. Clinical efficacy outcomes included overall survival and progression-free survival. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to assess the relative efficacy of first-line EGFR TKIs for overall survival and progression-free survival. This network meta-analysis showed that dacomitinib and osimertinib resulted in improved efficacy outcomes compared with afatinib, erlotinib and gefitinib. Both osimertinib and dacomitinib should be considered as standard first-line treatment options for patients diagnosed with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Management of common adverse events related to first-line dacomitinib use in EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled safety analysis.

Aim: This pooled safety analysis was conducted to analyze incidence and management of key dacomitinib-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients & methods: Patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who received first-line dacomitinib at the 45 mg/day recommended starting dose were included. ADRs were identified based on reasonable association with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Results: Overall, 251/255 patients (98%) experienced ADRs. The most common were diarrhea, rash, stomatitis, nail disorder and dry skin. Dose interruptions and dose reductions were reported in 47 and 52% of patients, respectively. Fewer grade 3 key ADRs were observed following dose reductions. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was generally tolerable. Most reported ADRs were known to be associated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and were managed with standard medical management and dose modifications.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, or everolimus in the treatment of prior sunitinib-treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of matching-adjusted indirect comparison analyses.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials. METHODS: Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82-1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69-1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00-1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95-1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36-0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45-0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42-0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59-1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.

Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dacomitinib is a second-generation, irreversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. We compared its efficacy and safety with that of the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (ARCHER 1050), we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years or ≥20 years in Japan and South Korea) with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC and one EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) at 71 academic medical centres and university hospitals in seven countries or special administrative regions. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral dacomitinib 45 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) or oral gefitinib 250 mg/day (in 28-day cycles) until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. Randomisation, stratified by race and EGFR mutation type, was done with a computer-generated random code assigned by a central interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by masked independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774721, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2013, and March 20, 2015, 452 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dacomitinib (n=227) or gefitinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival was 22·1 months (95% CI 20·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival according to masked independent review was 14·7 months (95% CI 11·1-16·6) in the dacomitinib group and 9·2 months (9·1-11·0) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio 0·59, 95% CI 0·47-0·74; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were dermatitis acneiform (31 [14%] of 227 patients given dacomitinib vs none of 224 patients given gefitinib), diarrhoea (19 [8%] vs two [1%]), and raised alanine aminotransferase levels (two [1%] vs 19 [8%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 21 (9%) patients given dacomitinib and in ten (4%) patients given gefitinib. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the dacomitinib group (one related to untreated diarrhoea and one to untreated cholelithases/liver disease) and one in the gefitinib group (related to sigmoid colon diverticulitis/rupture complicated by pneumonia). INTERPRETATION: Dacomitinib significantly improved progression-free survival over gefitinib in first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC and should be considered as a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING: SFJ Pharmaceuticals Group and Pfizer.

A five-factor biomarker profile obtained week 4-12 of treatment for improved prognostication in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from DARENCA study 2.

BACKGROUND: Several biomarkers of treatment efficacy have been associated with a better prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The prognostic significance of biomarkers in the early treatment phase is unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a complete national cohort of mRCC patients receiving first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) or interleukin-2 based immunotherapy (IT) from 2006 to 2010, overall survival (OS) was analysed for baseline International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) classification factors and on-treatment time-dependent biomarkers obtained day 1 each cycle week 4-12 after treatment initiation with multivariate analysis and bootstrap validation. RESULTS: A total of 735 patients received first-line TKI (59%) or IT (41%). Median OS was overall 14.0 months and 33.4, 18.5, and 5.8 months for baseline IMDC favourable, intermediate, and poor risk groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg, neutrophils < lower level of normal (LLN), platelets < LLN, sodium ≥ LLN, and LDH ≤1.5 times upper level of normal after treatment initiation were significantly associated with favourable OS independent of baseline IMDC risk group in multivariate analyses stratified for TKI and IT (p ≤ 0.04). Concordance (C)-index for IMDC classification alone was 0.625 (95% CI 0.59-0.66) and combined with the five-factor biomarker profile 0.683 (95% CI 0.64-0.72). For patients with good (3-5 factors) and poor (0-2 factors) biomarker profile median OS were 23.5 and 9.6 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). Adding the five-factor biomarker profile significantly improved prognostication in IMDC intermediate (25.7 vs. 12.0 months, p < 0.0001) and poor (12.8 vs. 6.4 months, p < 0.0001) risk groups. A trend was seen in IMDC favourable risk group (38.9 vs. 28.7 months, p = 0.112). CONCLUSION: On-treatment hypertension, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, LDH below 1.5 times upper level of normal, and normal sodium, obtained week 4-12 of treatment, are independent biomarkers of favourable outcome in mRCC, independent of treatment type.

Characterizing fatigue associated with sunitinib and its impact on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Using phase 3 trial data for sunitinib versus interferon (IFN)-α in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, retrospective analyses characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue and its impact on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg/day on a schedule of 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (375 patients) or IFN-α at a dose of 9 MU subcutaneously 3 times per week (360 patients). HRQoL was self-assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-15-item (FKSI-15) questionnaire, with fatigue assessed using its Disease-Related Symptoms subscale. Fatigue was also assessed by providers using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). A repeated-measures model (M1) and random intercept-slope model (M2) characterized sunitinib-associated fatigue over time. Another repeated-measures model examined the relationship between HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue grade. RESULTS: M1 demonstrated that the initial increase in patient-reported fatigue with sunitinib was worst during cycle 1, with mean values numerically better at subsequent cycles; most pairwise comparisons of consecutive CTCAE fatigue cycle means were not found to be statistically significant. M2 demonstrated that the overall trend (slope) for patient-reported and CTCAE fatigue with sunitinib was not statistically different from 0. The relationship between most HRQoL scores and CTCAE fatigue was close to linear regardless of treatment, with lower scores (worse HRQoL) corresponding to higher fatigue grade. The majority of HRQoL scores were better with sunitinib versus IFN-α for the same CTCAE fatigue grade. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reported worse fatigue during the first sunitinib cycle. However, in subsequent consecutive cycles, less fatigue was reported with no statistically significant worsening. CTCAE fatigue assessment may not fully capture patient treatment experience.

Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Offering patients in oncology trials the opportunity to cross over to active treatment at disease progression is a common strategy to address ethical issues associated with placebo controls but may lead to statistical challenges in the analysis of overall survival and cost-effectiveness because crossover leads to information loss and dilution of comparative clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVES: We provide an overview of how to address crossover, implications for risk-effect estimates of survival (hazard ratios) and cost-effectiveness, and how this influences decisions of reimbursement agencies. Two case studies using data from two phase III sunitinib oncology trials are used as illustration. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on statistical methods for adjusting for crossover and recent health technology assessment decisions in oncology. RESULTS: We show that for a trial with a high proportion of crossover from the control arm to the investigational arm, the choice of the statistical method greatly affects treatment-effect estimates and cost-effectiveness because the range of relative mortality risk for active treatment versus control is broad. With relatively frequent crossover, one should consider either the inverse probability of censoring weighting or the rank-preserving structural failure time model to minimize potential bias, with choice dependent on crossover characteristics, trial size, and available data. A large proportion of crossover favors the rank-preserving structural failure time model, while large sample size and abundant information about confounding factors favors the inverse probability of censoring weighting model. When crossover is very infrequent, methods yield similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to correct for crossover may lead to suboptimal decisions by pricing and reimbursement authorities, thereby limiting an effective drug's potential.

Emerging racial disparities among Medicare beneficiaries and Veterans with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that Black men receive worse prostate cancer care than White men. This has not been explored in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) in the current treatment era. METHODS: We evaluated treatment intensification (TI) and overall survival (OS) in Medicare (2015-2018) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA; 2015-2019) patients with mCSPC, classifying first-line mCSPC treatment as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) + novel hormonal therapy; ADT + docetaxel; ADT + first-generation nonsteroidal antiandrogen; or ADT alone. RESULTS: We analyzed 2226 Black and 16,071 White Medicare, and 1020 Black and 2364 White VHA patients. TI was significantly lower for Black vs White Medicare patients overall (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.81) and without Medicaid (adjusted OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.87). Medicaid patients had less TI irrespective of race. OS was worse for Black vs White Medicare patients overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.20; 95% CI 1.09-1.31) and without Medicaid (adjusted HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01-1.27). OS was worse in Medicaid vs without Medicaid, with no significant OS difference between races. TI was significantly lower for Black vs White VHA patients (adjusted OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61-0.92), with no significant OS difference between races. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-recommended TI was low for all patients with mCSPC, with less TI in Black patients in both Medicare and the VHA. Black race was associated with worse OS in Medicare but not the VHA. Medicaid patients had less TI and worse OS than those without Medicaid, suggesting poverty and race are associated with care and outcomes.

A systematic review of health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with palbociclib.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of palbociclib treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- aBC) or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in both the clinical and real-world setting. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials and real-world evidence studies up to June 2023 that reported HRQoL outcomes in patients with HR+/HER2- aBC or mBC treated with Palbociclib. Results: 15 unique studies reported across 35 records were identified. Of these, seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were single-arm clinical trials and five were real-world evidence (RWE) studies. HRQoL was generally found to be maintained in patients with HR+/HER2- aBC or mBC across RCTs, single-arm clinical trials and RWE studies. HRQoL measures across instruments, study types and line of therapy, were largely reported to be at least maintained if not improved from baseline among patients treated with palbociclib and were observed to be comparable or better in the palbociclib group versus monotherapy control arm in RCTs. Similar results were seen for treatment-related outcomes (e.g., sexual functioning, upset by hair loss, systemic therapy side effects etc.), and important individual patient outcomes, including pain, fatigue and physical functioning. Findings were also consistent across key clinical characteristics (visceral metastases, neutropenia), as well as patient populations often underrepresented in clinical trials (Asian patients, older adults). Conclusion: Overall, current evidence suggests that HRQoL is largely preserved with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- aBC or mBC across study types and populations.

The cost-effectiveness of growth hormone replacement therapy (Genotropin®) in hypopituitary adults in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of growth hormone (GH) treatment (Genotropin®) compared with no GH treatment in adults with GH deficiency in a Swedish societal setting. METHODS: A Markov-type cost-utility simulation model was constructed and used to simulate, for men and women, morbidity and mortality for GH-treated and -untreated individuals over a 20-year period. The calculations were performed using current available prices concerning morbidity-related healthcare costs and costs for Genotropin®. All costs and treatment effects were discounted at 3%. Costs were expressed in Euro (1€ = 9.03 SEK). GH-treated Swedish patients (n = 434) were identified from the KIMS database (Pfizer International Metabolic Database) and untreated patients (n = 2135) from the Swedish Cancer Registry and the Hospital Discharge Registry. RESULTS: The results are reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, including both direct and indirect costs for GH-treated versus untreated patients. The weighted sum of all subgroup incremental cost per QALY was €15,975 and €20,241 for men and women, respectively. Including indirect cost resulted in lower cost per QALY gained: €11,173 and €10,753 for men and women, respectively. Key drivers of the results were improvement in quality of life, increased survival, and intervention cost. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost per QALY gained is moderate when compared with informal thresholds applied in Sweden. The simulations suggest that GH-treatment is cost-effective for both men and women at the €55,371 (SEK 500,000 - the informal Swedish cost-effectiveness threshold) per QALY threshold.

Survival and Economic Impact of Rapid Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time in Patients With Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is associated with risk of metastasis and survival. This study evaluated the association of PSADT with clinical and economic outcomes in a real-world setting among patients with nmCRPC not receiving novel hormonal therapy (NHT), using 2-month PSADT thresholds. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified Veterans Health Administration patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and ≥2 PSA increases after medical/surgical castration (2012-2016). The third measurement was the index (CRPC) date. Patients with ≥3 postindex PSA measurements, including index, were followed until death or ≥12 months until disenrollment, study end, or death, and grouped into 2-month cohorts based on postindex PSADT. Cox regression models assessed association between PSADT, time to metastasis, and death. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2800 evaluable patients, median follow-up was 30 months and median PSADT was 17 months. Relative to the reference cohort (PSADT >12 months), all cohorts had significantly higher metastasis risk. PSADT ≤10-month cohorts had significantly greater mortality risk than the reference; hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) ranged from 12.3 (9.2, 16.4) in the PSADT ≤2-month cohort to 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) in the >10 to ≤12-month cohort. Total costs were significantly higher for cohorts up to and including the PSADT >8 to ≤10-month cohort, than for the reference cohort. Mean per patient per month all-cause medical plus pharmacy costs were $6623, $4768, and $4049 in the PSADT ≤2-month, >2 to ≤4-month cohort, and >4 to ≤6-month cohorts, respectively, versus $1911 in the PSADT >12-month cohort (P <0.05). CONCLUSION: Most patients with nmCRPC have PSADT >12 months and a long natural history. For those with shorter PSADT, the risk of metastasis, death, and costs increased. These data can help select patients for NHT and conversely those who can safely delay NHT for nmCRPC.

Budget impact of oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in adults at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. NMV/r has also been authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients (aged 226512 years and weighing at least 40 kg) who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Understanding the budget impact of introducing NMV/r for the treatment of adults with COVID-19 is of key interest to US payers. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the annual budget impact of introducing NMV/r in a US commercial health plan setting in the current Omicron COVID-19 era. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of NMV/r on health care costs in a hypothetical 1-million-member commercial health insurance plan over a 1-year period in the US population; clinical and cost inputs were derived from published literature with a focus on studies in the recent COVID-19 era that included vaccinated population and predominance of the Omicron variant. In the base-case analysis, it was assumed the only effect of NMV/r was a reduction in incidence (not severity) of hospitalization or death; its potential effect on post-COVID conditions was assessed in a scenario analysis. Outcomes included the number of hospitalizations, total cost, per patient per year (PPPY) costs, and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated 29,999 adults were eligible and sought treatment with oral antiviral for COVID-19 over 1 year. The availability of NMV/r was estimated to reduce the number of hospitalizations by 647 with a total budget impact of $2,733,745, $91 PPPY, and $0.23 PMPM. NMV/r was cost saving when including post-COVID conditions with a -$1,510,780 total budget impact, a PPPY cost of -$50, and a PMPM cost of -$0.13. Sensitivity analyses indicated results were most sensitive to the risk of hospitalization under supportive care, risk of hospitalization with NMV/r treatment and cost of NMV/r. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with NMV/r in the current COVID-19 era is estimated to result in substantial cost offsets because of reductions in hospitalization and modest budget impact to potential overall cost savings.

The cost impact of disease progression to metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic prostate cancer (PC) is associated with declining survival rates and increased health care expenditure. However, there are few studies quantifying these increased costs. OBJECTIVE: To estimate overall health care resource utilization and costs associated with progression to metastatic disease in Medicare or commercially insured patients with nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC (nmCSPC) or previously undiagnosed PC. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational cohort study, we used data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial and MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Databases. Included patients were aged 18 years or older, had 2 or more health care claims associated with a diagnosis of PC, and had a diagnosis of metastatic disease (index date) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016. Patients with PC were identified at index as either progressing from a localized disease state (nmCSPC) without evidence of castration resistance (progressors) or de novo metastatic without a prior PC diagnosis. Unadjusted all-cause direct health care costs for the 2-year pre-index period and up to 2 years post-index were summarized. Metastasis-related incremental all-cause direct health care costs were estimated using regression modeling to adjust for patient baseline characteristics, follow-up duration, and possible selection bias. RESULTS: We identified 3,854 patients who met the criteria for CSPC at metastasis: 2,766 Medicare patients (mean age 78.8 ± 7.6 years) and 1,088 commercial patients (mean age 57.6 ± 4.3 years), with de novo patients accounting for 28.9% and 34.5% of the 2 analysis populations, respectively. Mean unadjusted total all-cause health care costs over the 24-month pre-index period among progressors were $52,661 (Medicare) and $43,111 (commercial); those among de novo patients were $39,756 (Medicare) and $22,090 (commercial). Mean unadjusted post-index costs for progressors were $100,331 (Medicare) and $127,374 (commercial) over a mean follow-up duration of 14.63 and 18.41 months, respectively, and $124,538 (Medicare) and $173,408 (commercial) over a mean follow-up duration of 14.14 and 17.29 months for patients with de novo disease. After multivariate adjustment, incremental cost increases due to metastasis in patients with CSPC pre-index were estimated at $104,051 (Medicare) and $93,334 (commercial), assuming data are available for 24 months post-index. Allowing for variation in the postindex observation period, estimates were $71,308 (Medicare) and $82,336 (commercial). Among de novo patients, cost increases due to metastasis were estimated at $180,932 (Medicare) and $215,397 (commercial), assuming all patients have data for 24 months postindex. Allowing for variable follow-up, estimates were $113,253 (Medicare) and $161,714 (commercial). CONCLUSIONS: Development of metastatic CSPC is associated with considerable costs over a 24-month follow-up period. Cost increases are greater for de novo patients than for those who progressed from localized disease. DISCLOSURES: Q.-D. Trinh received personal fees from Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen and grants from Intuitive Surgical. L. Passos Chaves, Q. Feng, J. Zhu, and T. Abbott are employees of Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc. R. Sandin is an employee of, and holds stock in, Pfizer AB. This study was funded by Astellas Pharma Inc. (Northbrook, IL) and Pfizer Inc., the codevelopers of enzalutamide. Astellas Pharma Inc. was involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and decision to present these results.

Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: • To assess the economic value of targeted therapies as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment in the US and Sweden by indirect comparison of survival data. METHODS: • A Markov model simulated disease progression, adverse events and survival with sunitinib vs sorafenib in the US and bevacizumab plus interferon-α (IFN-α) in both countries. • Results, in life-years (LYs), progression-free LYs (PFLYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained and treatment costs (2008 USD) were obtained through deterministic and probabilistic analyses over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: • Sunitinib was more effective and less costly than sorafenib (gains of 0.52 PFLYs, 0.16 LYs and 0.17 QALYs and savings/patient of $13,576 in the US) and bevacizumab plus IFN-α (gains of 0.19 PFLYs, 0.23 LYs and 0.16 QALYs in both countries and savings/patient of $67,798 and $47,264 in the US and Sweden, respectively). • Results were most influenced by hazard ratios for progression-free and overall survival and treatment costs, making results generalizable across other countries if relative costs were to fall within the ranges of those in the US and Sweden. CONCLUSION: • The present analyses suggest that first-line mRCC treatment with sunitinib is a cost-effective alternative to sorafenib and bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Survival outcomes in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of enzalutamide and abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is limited to meta-analyses of randomized trials that exclude patients with significant comorbidities. We evaluated overall survival (OS) in patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) in a real-world single payer setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis (4/1/2014-3/31/2018) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database was conducted. Patients with mCRPC had ≥1 pharmacy claim for enzalutamide or abiraterone (first claim date = index date) following disease progression on surgical/medical castration, without chemotherapy <12 months prior to index date. Patients had continuous VHA enrollment for ≥12 months pre-index date and were followed until death, disenrollment, or end of study. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models examined the OS treatment effect. RESULTS: Patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC (N = 3174; enzalutamide, n = 1229; abiraterone, n = 1945) had mean ages of 74 and 73 years, respectively. Median follow-up was 18.27 and 19.07 months with enzalutamide and abiraterone, respectively. Enzalutamide-treated patients had longer median treatment duration than abiraterone-treated patients (9.93 vs 8.47 months, respectively, p = 0.0008). After baseline comorbidity adjustment, enzalutamide-treated patients had a 16% reduced risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.94; p = 0.0012). For patients who remained on first line-therapy only, enzalutamide-treated patients had improved OS versus abiraterone-treated patients (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.82). Enzalutamide-treated patients who crossed over to abiraterone had a comparable risk of death versus abiraterone-treated patients who crossed over to enzalutamide (HR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.35). These results were confirmed by sensitivity analysis, which considered prognostic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective analysis of the VHA database indicated that chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC initiating therapy with enzalutamide had improved survival versus abiraterone.