Comparison between de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer: the presence of a primary tumour is not the only difference-a Dutch population-based study from 2008 to 2018.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare characteristics and survival of patients with de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Data of patients with metastatic breast cancer were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were categorized as having de novo metastatic breast cancer (n = 8656) if they had distant metastases at initial presentation, or metachronous metastatic disease (n = 2374) in case they developed metastases within 5 or 10 years after initial breast cancer diagnosis. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatments of these two groups were compared, after which multiple imputation was performed to account for missing data. Overall survival was compared for patients treated with systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, using Kaplan Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. The hazard ratio for overall survival of de novo versus metachronous metastases was assessed accounting for time-varying effects. RESULTS: Compared to metachronous patients, patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer were more likely to be ≥ 70 years, to have invasive lobular carcinoma, clinical T3 or T4 tumours, loco-regional lymph node metastases, HER2 positivity, bone only disease and to have received systemic therapy in the metastatic setting. They were less likely to have triple negative tumours and liver or brain metastases. Patients with de novo metastases survived longer (median 34.7 months) than patients with metachronous metastases (median 24.3 months) and the hazard ratio (0.75) varied over time. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and survival between de novo and metachronous metastatic breast cancer highlight that these are distinct patients groups.

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Incremental Costs, Effectiveness, or Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Therapies in Breast Cancer Based on Claims Data: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Large secondary databases, such as those containing insurance claims data, are increasingly being used to compare the effects and costs of treatments in routine clinical practice. Despite their appeal, however, caution must be exercised when using these data. In this study, we aimed to identify and assess the methodological quality of studies that used claims data to compare the effectiveness, costs, or cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for breast cancer. METHODS: We searched Embase, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language publications and assessed the methodological quality using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number CRD42018103992. RESULTS: We identified 1251 articles, of which 106 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the United States (74%) and Taiwan (9%) and were based on claims data sets (35%) or claims data linked to cancer registries (58%). Furthermore, most included large samples (mean 17 130 patients) and elderly patients, and they covered various outcomes (eg, survival, adverse events, resource use, and costs). Key methodological shortcomings were the lack of information on relevant confounders, the risk of immortal time bias, and the lack of information on the validity of outcomes. Only a few studies performed sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Many comparative studies of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness have been published in recent decades based on claims data, and the number of publications has increased over time. Despite the availability of guidelines to improve quality, methodological issues persist and are often inappropriately addressed or reported.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance.

BACKGROUND: This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 µg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9-95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 µg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6-80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 µg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42016037723.

Regulatory Approval, Reimbursement, and Clinical Use of Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors in Metastatic Breast Cancer in the Netherlands.

Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that CDK4/6 inhibitors rapidly reached many eligible patients with metastatic breast cancer and were adopted gradually over time in the Netherlands. Adoption of innovative medicines may be further optimized, and better transparency of the availability of new medicines during different phases of the postapproval access pathway is needed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study reviewed approval and reimbursement decisions of the CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib and estimated the number of patients with metastatic breast cancer who were eligible for these medicines compared with the actual use in clinical practice. The study used nationwide claims data that were obtained from the Dutch Hospital Data. Claims and early access data for patients with hormone receptor-positive and ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer who were treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors from November 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021, were included. Importance: The number of new cancer medicines that are being approved by regulatory agents is increasing exponentially. Yet little is known about the pace at which these medicines reach eligible patients in daily clinical practice during different phases of the postapproval access pathway. Main Outcomes and Measures: Description of the postapproval access pathway, monthly number of patients who were treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice, and estimated number of patients who were eligible for treatment. Aggregated claims data were used, and patient characteristics and outcomes data were not collected. Objective: To describe the entire postapproval access pathway of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors in the Netherlands, from regulatory approval to reimbursement and to investigate the adoption of these medicines in clinical practice among patients with metastatic breast cancer. Results: Three CDK4/6 inhibitors have received European Union-wide regulatory approval for the treatment of HR-positive and ERBB2-negative metastatic breast cancer since November 2016. In the Netherlands, the number of patients who have been treated with these medicines increased to approximately 1847 (based on 1 624 665 claims over the entire study period) from approval to the end of 2021. Reimbursement for these medicines was granted between 9 and 11 months after approval. While awaiting reimbursement decisions, 492 patients received palbociclib, the first approved medicine of this class, via an expanded access program. By the end of the study period, 1616 patients (87%) were treated with palbociclib, whereas 157 patients (7%) received ribociclib, and 74 patients (4%) received abemaciclib. The CKD4/6 inhibitor was combined with an aromatase inhibitor in 708 patients (38%) and with fulvestrant in 1139 patients (62%). The pattern of use over time appeared to be somewhat lower compared with the estimated number of eligible patients (1847 vs 1915 in December 2021), especially in the first 2.5 years after approval.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of MammaPrint® to Guide the Use of Endocrine Therapy in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gene expression profiling tests can predict the risk of disease recurrence and select patients who are expected to benefit from therapy, while allowing other patients to forgo therapy. For breast cancers, these tests were initially designed to tailor chemotherapy decisions, but recent evidence suggests that they may also guide the use of endocrine therapy. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of a prognostic test, MammaPrint®, to guide the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients eligible according to Dutch treatment guidelines. METHODS: We constructed a Markov decision model to calculate the lifetime costs (in 2020 Euros) and effects (survival and quality-adjusted life-years) of MammaPrint® testing versus usual care (endocrine therapy for all patients) in a simulated cohort of patients. The population of interest includes patients for whom MammaPrint® testing is currently not indicated, but for whom it may be possible to safely omit endocrine therapy. We applied both a health care perspective and a societal perspective and discounted costs (4%) and effects (1.5%). Model inputs were obtained from published research (including randomized controlled trials), nationwide cancer registry data, cohort data and publicly available data sources. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainty around input parameters. Additionally, threshold analyses were performed to identify under which circumstances MammaPrint® testing would be cost effective. RESULTS: Adjuvant endocrine therapy guided by MammaPrint® resulted in fewer side effects, more (quality-adjusted) life-years (0.10 and 0.07 incremental QALYS and LYs, respectively) and higher costs (€18,323 incremental costs) compared with the usual care strategy in which all patients receive endocrine therapy. While costs for hospital visits, medication costs and productivity costs were somewhat higher in the usual care strategy, these did not outweigh costs of testing in the MammaPrint® strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €185,644 per QALY gained from a healthcare perspective and €180,617 from a societal perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the conclusions remained the same under changed input parameters and assumptions. Our results show that MammaPrint® can become a cost-effective strategy when either the price of the test is reduced (> 50%), or the proportion of patients for which treatment is altered (i.e. those with ultra-low risk) increases to > 26%. CONCLUSION: Standard MammaPrint® testing to guide the use of endocrine therapy in our simulated patient population appears not to be a cost-effective strategy compared with usual care. The cost effectiveness of the test can be improved by reducing the price or preselecting a population more likely to benefit from the test.

Changes in survival in de novo metastatic cancer in an era of new medicines.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, the therapeutic landscape has markedly changed for patients with metastatic solid cancer, yet few studies have evaluated its effect on population-based survival. The objective of this study was to evaluate the change in survival of patients with de novo metastatic solid cancers during the last 30 years. METHODS: For this retrospective study, data from almost 2 million patients diagnosed with a solid cancer between January 1, 1989, and December 31, 2018, were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, with follow-up until January 31, 2021. We classified patients as with or without de novo metastatic disease (M1 or M0, respectively) at diagnosis and determined the proportion with M1 disease over time. Changes in age-standardized net survival were calculated as the difference in the 1- and 5-year survival rates of patients diagnosed in 1989-1993 and 2014-2018. RESULTS: Different cancers showed divergent trends in the proportion of M1 disease and increases in net survival for M1 disease (approximately 0-50 percentage points at both 1 and 5 years). Patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors saw the largest increases in 5-year survival, but we also observed substantial 5-year survival increases for patients with neuroendocrine tumors, melanoma, prostate cancer, and breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Over 30 years, the survival of patients with de novo M1 disease modestly and unevenly increased among cancers. Metastatic cancer still remains a very lethal disease. Next to better treatment options, we call for better preventive measures and early detection to reduce the incidence of metastatic disease.

Socioeconomic benefit to individuals of achieving 2020 targets for four neglected tropical diseases controlled/eliminated by innovative and intensified disease management: Human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy, visceral leishmaniasis, Chagas disease.

BACKGROUND: The control or elimination of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) has targets defined by the WHO for 2020, reinforced by the 2012 London Declaration. We estimated the economic impact to individuals of meeting these targets for human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy, visceral leishmaniasis and Chagas disease, NTDs controlled or eliminated by innovative and intensified disease management (IDM). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified information on productivity loss and out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) related to these NTDs, which were combined with projections of the number of people suffering from each NTD, country and year for 2011-2020 and 2021-2030. The ideal scenario in which the WHO's 2020 targets are met was compared with a counterfactual scenario that assumed the situation of 1990 stayed unaltered. Economic benefit equaled the difference between the two scenarios. Values are reported in 2005 US$, purchasing power parity-adjusted, discounted at 3% per annum from 2010. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to quantify the degree of uncertainty around the base-case impact estimate. RESULTS: The total global productivity gained for the four IDM-NTDs was I$ 23.1 (I$ 15.9 -I$ 34.0) billion in 2011-2020 and I$ 35.9 (I$ 25.0 -I$ 51.9) billion in 2021-2030 (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles in brackets), corresponding to US$ 10.7 billion (US$ 7.4 -US$ 15.7) and US$ 16.6 billion (US$ 11.6 -US$ 24.0). Reduction in OPPs was I$ 14 billion (US$ 6.7 billion) and I$ 18 billion (US$ 10.4 billion) for the same periods. CONCLUSIONS: We faced important limitations to our work, such as finding no OPPs for leprosy. We had to combine limited data from various sources, heterogeneous background, and of variable quality. Nevertheless, based on conservative assumptions and subsequent uncertainty analyses, we estimate that the benefits of achieving the targets are considerable. Under plausible scenarios, the economic benefits far exceed the necessary investments by endemic country governments and their development partners. Given the higher frequency of NTDs among the poorest households, these investments represent good value for money in the effort to improve well-being, distribute the world's prosperity more equitably and reduce inequity.

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC. RESULTS: We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population. LIMITATIONS: Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The Socioeconomic Benefit to Individuals of Achieving the 2020 Targets for Five Preventive Chemotherapy Neglected Tropical Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths (STH) and trachoma represent the five most prevalent neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). They can be controlled or eliminated by means of safe and cost-effective interventions delivered through programs of Mass Drug Administration (MDA)-also named Preventive Chemotherapy (PCT). The WHO defined targets for NTD control/elimination by 2020, reinforced by the 2012 London Declaration, which, if achieved, would result in dramatic health gains. We estimated the potential economic benefit of achieving these targets, focusing specifically on productivity and out-of-pocket payments. METHODS: Productivity loss was calculated by combining disease frequency with productivity loss from the disease, from the perspective of affected individuals. Productivity gain was calculated by deducting the total loss expected in the target achievement scenario from the loss in a counterfactual scenario where it was assumed the pre-intervention situation in 1990 regarding NTDs would continue unabated until 2030. Economic benefits from out-of-pocket payments (OPPs) were calculated similarly. Benefits are reported in 2005 US$ (purchasing power parity-adjusted and discounted at 3% per annum from 2010). Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the influence of changes in input parameters. RESULTS: The economic benefit from productivity gain was estimated to be I$251 billion in 2011-2020 and I$313 billion in 2021-2030, considerably greater than the total OPPs averted of I$0.72 billion and I$0.96 billion in the same periods. The net benefit is expected to be US$ 27.4 and US$ 42.8 for every dollar invested during the same periods. Impact varies between NTDs and regions, since it is determined by disease prevalence and extent of disease-related productivity loss. CONCLUSION: Achieving the PCT-NTD targets for 2020 will yield significant economic benefits to affected individuals. Despite large uncertainty, these benefits far exceed the investment required by governments and their development partners within all reasonable scenarios. Given the concentration of the NTDs among the poorest households, these investments represent good value for money in efforts to share the world's prosperity and reduce inequity.

Productivity Loss Related to Neglected Tropical Diseases Eligible for Preventive Chemotherapy: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) not only cause health and life expectancy loss, but can also lead to economic consequences including reduced ability to work. This article describes a systematic literature review of the effect on the economic productivity of individuals affected by one of the five worldwide most prevalent NTDs: lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths (ascariasis, trichuriasis, and hookworm infection) and trachoma. These diseases are eligible to preventive chemotherapy (PCT). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eleven bibliographic databases were searched using different names of all NTDs and various keywords relating to productivity. Additional references were identified through reference lists from relevant papers. Of the 5316 unique publications found in the database searches, thirteen papers were identified for lymphatic filariasis, ten for onchocerciasis, eleven for schistosomiasis, six for soil-transmitted helminths and three for trachoma. Besides the scarcity in publications reporting the degree of productivity loss, this review revealed large variation in the estimated productivity loss related to these NTDs. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that productivity is affected by NTDs, although the actual impact depends on the type and severity of the NTD as well as on the context where the disease occurs. The largest impact on productivity loss of individuals affected by one of these diseases seems to be due to blindness from onchocerciasis and severe schistosomiasis manifestations; productivity loss due to trachoma-related blindness has never been studied directly. However, productivity loss at an individual level might differ from productivity loss at a population level because of differences in the prevalence of NTDs. Variation in estimated productivity loss between and within diseases is caused by differences in research methods and setting. Publications should provide enough information to enable readers to assess the quality and relevance of the study for their purposes.

Concerted Efforts to Control or Eliminate Neglected Tropical Diseases: How Much Health Will Be Gained?

BACKGROUND: The London Declaration (2012) was formulated to support and focus the control and elimination of ten neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), with targets for 2020 as formulated by the WHO Roadmap. Five NTDs (lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths and trachoma) are to be controlled by preventive chemotherapy (PCT), and four (Chagas' disease, human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy and visceral leishmaniasis) by innovative and intensified disease management (IDM). Guinea worm, virtually eradicated, is not considered here. We aim to estimate the global health impact of meeting these targets in terms of averted morbidity, mortality, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs). METHODS: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study provides prevalence and burden estimates for all nine NTDs in 1990 and 2010, by country, age and sex, which were taken as the basis for our calculations. Estimates for other years were obtained by interpolating between 1990 (or the start-year of large-scale control efforts) and 2010, and further extrapolating until 2030, such that the 2020 targets were met. The NTD disease manifestations considered in the GBD study were analyzed as either reversible or irreversible. Health impacts were assessed by comparing the results of achieving the targets with the counterfactual, construed as the health burden had the 1990 (or 2010 if higher) situation continued unabated. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS: Our calculations show that meeting the targets will lead to about 600 million averted DALYs in the period 2011-2030, nearly equally distributed between PCT and IDM-NTDs, with the health gain amongst PCT-NTDs mostly (96%) due to averted disability and amongst IDM-NTDs largely (95%) from averted mortality. These health gains include about 150 million averted irreversible disease manifestations (e.g. blindness) and 5 million averted deaths. Control of soil-transmitted helminths accounts for one third of all averted DALYs. We conclude that the projected health impact of the London Declaration justifies the required efforts.