United States-based practice patterns and resource utilization in advanced neuroendocrine tumor treatment.

AIM: To assess advanced neuroendocrine tumor (NET) treatment patterns and resource utilization by tumor progression stage and tumor site in the United States. METHODS: United States Physicians meeting eligibility criteria were provided with online data extraction forms to collect patient chart data on recent NET patients. Resource utilization and treatment pattern data were collected over a baseline period (after diagnosis and before tumor progression), as well as initial and secondary progression periods, with progression defined according to measureable radiographic evidence of tumor progression. Resource categories used in the analysis include: Treatments (e.g., surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapies), hospitalizations and physician visits, diagnostic tests (biomarkers, imaging, laboratory tests). Comparisons between categories of resource utilization and tumor progression status were examined using univariate (by tumor site) and multivariate analyses (across all tumor sites). RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians were included in the study and completed online data extraction forms using the charts of 110 patients. The physician sample showed a relatively even distribution for those affiliated with academic versus community hospitals (46% vs 55%). Forty (36.3%) patients were reported to have pancreatic NET (pNET), while 70 (63.6%) patients had gastrointestinal tract (GI)/Lung as the primary NET site. Univariate analysis showed the proportion of patients hospitalized increased from 32.7% during baseline to 42.1% in the progression stages. While surgeries were performed at similar proportions overall at baseline and progression, pNET patients, were more likely than GI/Lung NET patients to have undergone surgery during the baseline (33.3% vs 25.0%) and any progression periods (26.7% vs 23.4%). While peptide-receptor radionuclide and targeted therapy utilization was low across NET types and tumor stages, GI/Lung types exhibited greater utilization of these technologies compared to pNET. Chemotherapy utilization was also greater among GI/Lung types. Multivariate analysis results demonstrated that patients in first progression period were over 3 times more likely to receive chemotherapy when compared to baseline (odds ratio: 3.31; 95%CI: 1.46-7.48, P = 0.0041). Further, progression was associated with a greater likelihood of having a study physician visit [relative risk (RR): 1.54; 95%CI: 1.10-2.17, P = 0.0117], and an increased frequency of other physician visits (RR: 1.84; 95%CI: 1.10-3.10, P = 0.0211). CONCLUSION: Resource utilization in advanced NET in the United States is significant overall and data suggests progression has an impact on resource utilization regardless of NET tumor site.

International practice patterns and resource utilization in the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared resource use and practice patterns in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) on disease progression, across countries, and by tumor type. METHODS: Physicians in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Brazil, and Italy completed data extraction forms to extract chart data of patients with NET relating to health care resource utilization and treatment practice. Data were assessed in a cross-sectional manner, by country, and by NET subtype. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare categories of resource use by disease progression status. RESULTS: A total of 197 physicians provided data on 394 patients. Overall resource utilization was high across tumor types, countries, and progression. Nearly half of all patients received chemotherapy (49%); moreover, high rates of hospitalization (65%), surgery (47%), and use of somatostatin analog (77%) were observed, with lower rates of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (10%) and targeted therapies (6%). These patterns were consistent across gastrointestinal tract/lung NET and pancreatic NET. However, a certain variation in resource utilization was observed across countries. Disease progression was associated with increasing utilization of chemotherapy, hospitalization, and targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced NET is associated with significant resource use across subtypes and countries, and resource utilization is likely to increase on disease progression. There remains an unmet need for therapeutic options after disease progression.

Review of US Comparative Economic Evidence for Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line VEGF Inhibitor Therapy.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the economic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was estimated to be up to $1.6 billion worldwide and has since grown annually. With the continuing increase of the economic burden of this disease in the United States, there is a growing need for economic analyses to guide treatment and policy decisions for this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate available comparative economic data on targeted therapies for patients with mRCC who have failed first-line targeted therapies. METHOD: A broad and comprehensive literature review was conducted of US-based studies between January 1, 2005, and February 11, 2013, evaluating comparative economic evidence for targeted agents that are used as second-line therapy or beyond. Based on the specific search parameters that focused on cost-effectiveness and economic comparisons between vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFr) inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, only 7 relevant, US-based economic evaluations were found appropriate for inclusion in the analysis. All authors, who are experts in the health economics and outcomes research field, reviewed the search results. Studies of interest were those with a targeted agent, VEGF/VEGFr or mTOR inhibitor, in at least 1 study arm. DISCUSSION: As a group, targeted therapies were found to be cost-effective options in treating patients with refractory mRCC in the United States. Oral therapies showed an economic advantage over intravenous agents, presumably because oral therapies have a lower impact on outpatient resources. Based on 3 studies, everolimus has been shown to have an economic advantage over temsirolimus and to be cost-effective compared with sorafenib. No economic comparison between everolimus and axitinib, the only 2 drugs with a National Comprehensive Cancer Network category 1 recommendation for use after the failure of VEGFr tyrosine kinase inhibitors, is available. CONCLUSION: The limited and heterogeneous sum of the currently available economic evidence does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn about the most cost-effective targeted treatment option in the second-line setting and beyond in patients with mRCC. It is hoped that ongoing head-to-head therapeutic trials and biomarker studies will help improve the economic efficiency of these expensive agents.

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs sunitinib in treating patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (Afinitor) and sunitinib (Sutent) were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). (Afinitor is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; Sutent is a registered trademark of Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA.) This analysis examined the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus vs sunitinib in this setting from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of patients with advanced, progressive pNET and to estimate the cost per life-year gained (LYG) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when treating with everolimus vs sunitinib. Efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the agents using phase 3 trial data. Model health states included: stable disease with no adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Therapy costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs such as physician visits, tests, hospitalizations, and adverse event costs were obtained from literature and/or primary research. Utility inputs were based on primary research. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model's robustness. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, everolimus was associated with an incremental 0.448 LYG (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LYG ($41,702/QALY gained). The ICER fell within the cost per QALY range for many widely used oncology drugs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that, overall, there is a trend that everolimus is cost-effective compared to sunitinib in this setting. LIMITATIONS: Results of the indirect analysis were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Assumptions that treatment patterns are the same across therapies may not represent real-world practice. CONCLUSIONS: While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies, everolimus is expected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced, progressive pNET.

Economic evaluation of everolimus versus sorafenib for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: A recent indirect comparison study showed that sunitinib-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients treated with everolimus are expected to have improved overall survival outcomes compared to patients treated with sorafenib. This analysis examines the likely cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sorafenib in this setting from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory mRCC patients and to estimate the cost per incremental life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Markov states included are stable disease without adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Transition probabilities were estimated using a subset of the RECORD-1 patient population receiving everolimus after sunitinib, and a comparable population receiving sorafenib in a single-arm phase II study. Costs of antitumor therapies were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Health state costs accounted for physician visits, tests, adverse events, postprogression therapy, and end-of-life care. The model extrapolated beyond the trial time horizon for up to 6 years based on published trial data. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The estimated gain over sorafenib treatment was 1.273 LYs (0.916 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $81,643. The deterministic analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $64,155/LYG ($89,160/QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that results were highly consistent across simulations. CONCLUSIONS: As the ICER fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology medicines, everolimus is projected to be a cost-effective treatment relative to sorafenib for sunitinib-refractory mRCC.

Association between genetic variants in sortilin-related receptor 1 (SORL1) and Alzheimer's disease in adults with Down syndrome.

Recent reports have suggested that variants in the sortilin-related receptor gene (SORL1) increase the risk of late onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Northern European, Hispanic, African-American and Isreali-Arab populations. SORL1 directs trafficking of amyloid precursor protein (APP) and under-expression of SORL1 may lead to over-expression of beta amyloid peptides. Adults with Down syndrome (DS) over-express APP and have early onset and high risk for AD. We investigated the relation of seven variants in the gene for SORL1 to age at onset and risk for AD among 208 adults with DS, 45-70 years of age at baseline. Participants were ascertained through the New York State developmental disability service system and followed at 18-month intervals. Information from cognitive assessments, caregiver interviews, medical record review and neurological examination was used to establish the diagnosis of dementia. Homozygosity for the minor T allele in rs556349 and for the minor C allele in rs536360 was associated with later age at onset and reduced risk of AD (HR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.08-0.86; and HR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.16-0.98, respectively). Mean age at onset was approximately four years later in individuals who were homozygous for those alleles compared with those who had at least one major allele. These findings indicate a modest association of variants in SORL1 with AD. In addition, we did not observe the same alleles to be associated with AD compared with earlier studies, suggesting that these SNPs are in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the putative functional variants or that expression of the SORL1 gene and hence its interaction with APP might be modified by the extremely high levels of APP characteristic of Down syndrome. Thus, further studies are needed to identify functional variants that influence risk for AD in this uniquely vulnerable population.