Treatment Patterns and Health Resource Use Among Patients with Metastatic Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated at a Tertiary Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Although an increasing number of treatments have become available for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs), there remains little consensus on treatment sequence and its impact on health care resource use (HRU). We sought to describe treatment patterns and HRU, in a cohort of patients with metastatic GEP-NETs treated at a tertiary referral center in the U.S. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients with a well-differentiated, metastatic GEP-NET evaluated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between July 2003 and May 2015. For these patients, we describe the sequence of treatment regimens received for their disease, together with associated HRU. RESULTS: We identified 682 patients with advanced GEP-NETs. Of these patients, 597 (87.0%) initiated ≥1 treatment over the follow-up period. The mean age at diagnosis was 58.5 years, 50.2% were men, and 94.0% were white. A total of 83.1% initiated a somatostatin analog (SSA) as their first-line treatment, with 55% and 31% of patients continuing with second- and third-line therapies. A total of 31.2% of patients with SSAs underwent dose escalation to above standard dose. In this setting, patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors were more commonly treated with cytotoxic regimens than other NET tumor types and also had higher HRU. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that, at a tertiary referral center, patients with advanced NETs commonly received multiple courses of treatments. Our data suggest a clear preference for use of SSAs as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced NETs, with SSAs commonly escalated and continued throughout the course of treatment in combination with other regimens. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current study demonstrates the common use of somatostatin analog as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors as well as the incorporation of multiple different treatment regimens in the treatment course of patients with this disease.

Treatment Patterns and Survival among Patients with Metastatic Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours in Sweden - a Population-based Register-linkage and Medical Chart Review Study.

Background: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) are neoplasms derived from the endocrine system in the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas. Treatment options include surgery; pharmacological treatments like somatostatin analogues (SSA), interferon alpha, molecular targeted therapy and chemotherapy; and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. The objective of this study was to describe treatment patterns and survival among patients with metastatic GEP-NET grade 1 or 2 in Sweden. Methods: Data was obtained via linkage of nationwide registers. Patients diagnosed with metastatic GEP-NET grade 1 or 2 in Sweden between 2005 and 2013 were included (n=811; National population). In addition, medical chart review was performed for the subpopulation diagnosed at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg (n=127; Regional population). Treatment patterns, including treatment sequences, and overall survival were assessed. Results: Most patients had small intestinal NET (76%). In the regional population, 72% had grade 1 tumours; 50% had functioning tumours. The two most common first-line treatments were surgery (57%) and SSA (25%). After first-line surgery, 46% received SSA, while 40% had no further treatment. After first-line SSA, 52% received surgery, while 27% had no further treatment. Overall median survival time from date of diagnosis was 7.0 years (95% CI 6.2-not reached). Among patients with distant metastases, pancreatic NET (vs. small intestinal NET) was associated with poorer survival (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3), as were liver metastases (HR 3.2; 95% CI 1.5-7.0). Conclusions: First-line surgery was typically followed by SSA or no further treatment. Among patients with distant metastases, pancreatic NET or liver metastases were associated with a poorer survival.

Cost-of-illness of metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours in Sweden-A population-based register-linkage study.

The objective was to estimate the cost-of-illness of grades 1 and 2 metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) in Sweden in 2013 in a population-based study including all patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2013. Data were obtained from national registers, and patients who utilised healthcare resources due to metastatic GEP-NETs in 2013 were included. The study included 478 patients (mean age 64 [SD=11] years, 51% men). The majority (80%) had small intestinal NET, 10% had pancreatic NET, and 41% had carcinoid syndrome. The total cost-of-illness was €12,189,000 in 2013, of which direct costs constituted 77% and costs from production loss constituted 22%. The largest contributor to the direct medical costs was prescription drugs (54%; primarily somatostatin analogues [91% of the total drug cost]). Production loss due to sickness absence constituted 52% of the total costs of production loss. The total annual cost per patient was €25,500. By patient group, the cost was €24,800 (95% CI €21,600-€28,100) for patients with small intestinal NET, €37,300 (95% CI €23,300-€51,300) for those with pancreatic NET and €18,600 (95% CI €12,600-€24,500) for patients with other GEP-NETs. To conclude, the total annual cost of grades 1 and 2 metastatic GEP-NETs in Sweden was €25,500 per patient and year.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making. METHODS: The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing. RESULTS: The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives. FUNDING: Ipsen Pharma.

Patient-reported health state utilities in metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours - an analysis based on the CLARINET study.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) are rare cancers most often found in the gastrointestinal system or the pancreas. However, patient-reported health state utilities based on clinical trials have not been previously reported in this disease area. METHODS: The CLARINET study collected EORTC QLQ-C30 data from patients in both stable and progressive disease states, although data for the latter were only available during the early stage of progression due to trial design. Using published algorithms, data were mapped to EQ-5D utility values. Random-effects generalised least squares models were used to investigate the impacts of progression status, tumour site and other patient characteristics on mapped utility values. RESULTS: In total, 1053 observations from 204 patients were mapped to EQ-5D utilities using the McKenzie mapping algorithm. The final random-effects model included age, gender, baseline utility and progression status as covariates; it was not feasible to investigate time-to-death utility due to a limit number of deaths in the CLARINET study. Tumour location (midgut vs pancreas) does not seem to affect utility. However, the difference in utilities based on progression status is statistically significant (p < 0.05) in the base case analysis, and the estimated utilities for stable and progressive disease are 0.776 and 0.726, respectively. Furthermore, scenario analyses showed that utility for progressive disease is numerically lower than for stable disease, but this may not be statistically significant in scenarios where alternative Longworth mapping algorithm was used. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with GEP-NETs experience worse utility values in the progressive disease state compared to the stable disease state, based on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from the CLARINET study. The decline of utility in the progressive disease state may be underestimated because progressive HRQL data were only collected shortly after the progression event in the trial. The estimated trial-based utilities can be used in future economic evaluations for GEP-NET treatments and to provide more insights to physicians on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in GEP-NETs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLARINET EU Clinical Trials Register Number, 2005-004904-35 .

Comorbidities, treatment patterns and cost-of-illness of acromegaly in Sweden: a register-linkage population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Acromegaly is a complex endocrine disease with multiple comorbidities. Treatment to obtain biochemical remission includes surgery, medical therapy and radiation. We aimed to describe comorbidities, treatment patterns and cost-of-illness in patients with acromegaly in Sweden. DESIGN: A nationwide population-based study. METHODS: Patients with acromegaly were identified and followed in national registers in Sweden. Longitudinal treatment patterns were assessed in patients diagnosed between July 2005 and December 2013. The cost-of-illness during 2013 was estimated from a societal perspective among patients diagnosed between 1987 and 2013. RESULTS: Among 358 patients with acromegaly (48% men, mean age at diagnosis 50.0 (s.d. 15.3) years) at least one comorbidity was reported in 81% (n = 290). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (40%, n = 142), neoplasms outside the pituitary (30%, n = 109), hypopituitarism (22%, n = 80) and diabetes mellitus (17%, n = 61). Acromegaly treatment was initiated on average 3.7 (s.d. 6.9) months after diagnosis. Among the 301 treated patients, the most common first-line treatments were surgery (60%, n = 180), somatostatin analogues (21%, n = 64) and dopamine agonists (14%, n = 41). After primary surgery, 24% (n = 44) received somatostatin analogues. The annual per-patient cost was €12 000; this was €8700 and €16 000 if diagnosed before or after July 2005, respectively. The cost-of-illness for acromegaly and its comorbidities was 77% from direct costs and 23% from production loss. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of comorbidity is high in patients with acromegaly. The most common first-line treatment in acromegalic patients was surgery followed by somatostatin analogues. The annual per-patient cost of acromegaly and its comorbidities was €12 000.