Cost-utility of Initial Management of High-grade T1 Bladder Cancer With Intravesical BCG vs Immediate Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-utility of initial management of high-grade T1 non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HGT1 NMIBC) with intravesical BCG vs immediate radical cystectomy. High-risk NMIBC patients may climb a costly ladder of treatments, culminating in radical cystectomy for oncologic or symptomatic benefit in up to one-third. This high healthcare resource utilization presents a challenging dilemma in balancing sufficiently aggressive management with cost, toxicity, and quality-of-life. METHODS: Cost-utility of initially managing HGT1 with intravesical BCG and early radical cystectomy with ileal conduit urinary diversion was compared using decision-analytic Markov models. Five-year oncologic outcomes, adverse event rates, and published utility values were extracted from literature. Costs were calculated from a US Medicare perspective in 2021 US dollars. Sensitivity analysis identified drivers of cost and break-even points for recurrence and progression. RESULTS: Mean costs were $26,093 for intravesical BCG and $39,720 for immediate radical cystectomy, though cystectomy generated a gain of 2.2 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to intravesical BCG. Immediate cystectomy was a more cost-effective management strategy for HGT1 NMIBC with an incremental CE ratios (ICER) of $7120/QALY. The costs associated with cystectomy, TURBT, and BCG toxicity had the greatest impact on ICER. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that intravesical BCG became a cost-effective management strategy if the 5-year recurrence rate of HG T1 was less than 56% or the 5-year progression rate to MIBC was less than 4%. CONCLUSION: At current prices, treatment of high-grade T1 NMIBC with early radical cystectomy is more cost-effective management strategy than initial treatment with intravesical BCG.

Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly evolved in recent years. Without direct comparator trials, factors such as cost effectiveness (CE) are important to guide decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the CE of guideline-recommended approved first- and second-line treatment regimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comprehensive Markov model was developed to analyze the CE of the five current National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapies with appropriate second-line therapy for patient cohorts with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable and intermediate/poor risk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and total accumulated costs were estimated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In patients with favorable risk, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib added $32 935 in costs and yielded 0.28 QALYs, resulting in an incremental CE ratio (ICER) of $117 625 per QALY in comparison to pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib. In patients with intermediate/poor risk, nivolumab + ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib added $2252 in costs and yielded 0.60 QALYs compared to cabozantinib followed by nivolumab, yielding an ICER of $4184. Limitations include differences in median follow-up duration between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib were cost-effective treatment sequences for patients with favorable-risk mRCC. Nivolumab +ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib was the most cost-effective treatment sequence for patients with intermediate-/poor-risk mRCC, dominating all preferred treatments. PATIENT SUMMARY: Because new treatments for kidney cancer have not been compared head to head, comparison of their cost and efficacy can help in making decisions about the best treatments to use first. Our model showed that patients with a favorable risk profile are most likely to benefit from pembrolizumab and lenvatinib or axitinib followed by cabozantinib, while patients with an intermediate or poor risk profile will probably benefit most from nivolumab and ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib.

Pilot Study in Investigating Material Financial Toxicity Markers by Age in Cancer Patients.

Purpose: Studies have shown that financial toxicity can reduce survival, decrease quality of life, and reduce compliance with treatments. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate material markers of financial toxicity, including insurance coverage, financial assistance, and balances due among adolescent and young adult (AYA) (18-39), adult (40-64), and senior adult (>65) patients with a sarcoma diagnosis after the Affordable Care Act became effective. Methods: This study performed a retrospective analysis of possible indicators within the material domain of financial toxicity in sarcoma patients, a common diagnosis in young adult patients. Indicators of financial toxicity included: insurance status and number of insurances, charity care, accessing financing options, or having an unpaid balance referred to a collection's agency. Results: The cumulative charges per patient were similar between AYA, adult, and senior adult populations at an average of $194,329 (standard deviation [SD] = $321,425), $236,724 (SD = $368,345), and $188,030 (SD = $271,191), respectively. AYA patients were more likely than adult and senior adult patients to have Medicaid coverage (income-based government insurance) (22.1% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.2%), receive charity care (5.3% vs. 2.6% vs. 1.2%), or have a balance referred to a collection's agency (9.2% vs. 5.8% vs. 1.2%). Conclusions: This study suggests that younger cancer patients are more likely to suffer material financial strain and additional financial resources may need to be made available to ensure they can receive care without an increase of financial toxicity markers and undue financial stress.

Budget Impact of Adaptive Abiraterone Therapy for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of a novel strategy known as adaptive abiraterone therapy based on mathematical modeling of evolutionary dynamics of tumor subpopulations was shown in a clinical trial to extend the time to disease progression in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and reduced the use of abiraterone therapy. Although the clinical impact of adaptive abiraterone treatment is clear, the economic impact of this strategy has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of care with adaptive abiraterone therapy versus standard continuous abiraterone therapy in patients with metastatic CRPC, using patient billing data. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of billing data for patients with metastatic CRPC who received abiraterone treatment at a large cancer center between June 1, 2012, and August 31, 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether they received adaptive abiraterone therapy (N = 15) or continuous abiraterone therapy (N = 21). All patients with refractory, metastatic prostate cancer after castration that was indicated for abiraterone therapy were eligible for this study. Each patient in the adaptive abiraterone therapy cohort received abiraterone plus prednisone treatment until the patient reached a target threshold of 50% or more reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level compared with his PSA level before abiraterone therapy; treatment was then suspended until the PSA level rose above the 50% of PSA before abiraterone therapy target threshold. The continuous therapy cohort received abiraterone plus prednisone daily until radiographic progression. The primary outcomes were the mean annual cost of care per patient, including and excluding the cost of abiraterone, and the cost of care, by clinical category. RESULTS: The median time to disease progression was 25.8 months for patients who received adaptive abiraterone therapy compared with 12.1 months for patients who received continuous abiraterone therapy. Overall, the mean total, including the cost of drug, annual cost per patient who received adaptive abiraterone therapy was $79,093 compared with $146,782 for patients who received continuous abiraterone therapy (P <.0001). The annual cost of care per patient, excluding the cost of abiraterone, was $13,883 for those who received adaptive therapy versus $22,322 for those who received continuous abiraterone therapy (P = .2757), which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Practical precision medicine strategies, such as adaptive abiraterone treatment or pharmacogenomics-targeted dosing, can use known biomarkers, such as PSA, to tailor therapy, generate improved outcomes, and reduce costs without the need for novel drug and diagnostic discovery and development. The results of this study suggest that a large clinical study of adaptive abiraterone therapy is warranted to validate the potential of this strategy to extend the time to disease progression and reduce costs of treatment of metastatic CRPC.

Pharmacogenomics: An evolving clinical tool for precision medicine.

Pharmacogenomics, ie, the study of how an individual's genomic profile influences his or her response to drugs, has emerged as a clinical tool to optimize drug therapy. Certain variants in some genes increase the risk of severe, life-threatening adverse effects from certain drugs. Integrating pharmacogenomics into clinical practice to assist in drug selection and dosing has the potential to improve the outcomes of treatment, reduce the risk of drug-induced morbidity and death, and be cost-effective.

Key Lessons Learned from Moffitt's Molecular Tumor Board: The Clinical Genomics Action Committee Experience.

BACKGROUND: The increasing practicality of genomic sequencing technology has led to its incorporation into routine clinical practice. Successful identification and targeting of driver genomic alterations that provide proliferative and survival advantages to tumor cells have led to approval and ongoing development of several targeted cancer therapies. Within many major cancer centers, molecular tumor boards are constituted to shepherd precision medicine into clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In July 2014, the Clinical Genomics Action Committee (CGAC) was established as the molecular tumor board companion to the Personalized Medicine Clinical Service (PMCS) at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida. The processes and outcomes of the program were assessed in order to help others move into the practice of precision medicine. RESULTS: Through the establishment and initial 1,400 patients of the PMCS and its associated molecular tumor board at a major cancer center, five practical lessons of broad applicability have been learned: transdisciplinary engagement, the use of the molecular report as an aid to clinical management, clinical actionability, getting therapeutic options to patients, and financial considerations. Value to patients includes access to cutting-edge practice merged with individualized preferences in treatment and care. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic-driven cancer medicine is increasingly becoming a part of routine clinical practice. For successful implementation of precision cancer medicine, strategically organized molecular tumor boards are critical to provide objective evidence-based translation of observed molecular alterations into patient-centered clinical action. Molecular tumor board implementation models along with clinical and economic outcomes will define future treatment standards. The Oncologist 2017;22:144-151Implications for Practice: It is clear that the increasing practicality of genetic tumor sequencing technology has led to its incorporation as part of routine clinical practice. Subsequently, many cancer centers are seeking to develop a personalized medicine services and/or molecular tumor board to shepherd precision medicine into clinical practice. This article discusses the key lessons learned through the establishment and development of a molecular tumor board and personalized medicine clinical service. This article highlights practical issues and can serve as an important guide to other centers as they conceive and develop their own personalized medicine services and molecular tumor boards.

Budget impact analysis of CYP2C19-guided voriconazole prophylaxis in AML.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the economic impact of proactive, CYP2C19 genotype-guided voriconazole prophylaxis in AML. METHODS: An Excel-based model was created to project the cost of treating a simulated cohort of severely neutropenic AML patients undergoing antifungal prophylaxis. The model compares (i) standard prophylactic dosing with voriconazole and (ii) CYP2C19 genotyping of all AML patients to guide voriconazole dosing and prescribing. RESULTS: Based on the model, genotype-guided dosing of voriconazole conservatively spares 2.3 patients per year from invasive fungal infections. Implementing proactive genotyping of all AML patients in a simulated 100 patient cohort is expected to save a total of $41467 or $415 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The model, based on the robust literature of clinical and economic data, predicts that proactive genotype-guided voriconazole prophylaxis is likely to yield modest cost savings while improving patient outcomes. The primary driver of savings is the avoidance of expensive antifungal treatment and extended hospital stays, costing $30 952 per patient, in patients succumbing to fungal infection.