Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Saudi Arabia.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cetuximab in relation to primary tumor location and after resection from the perspective of the Saudi healthcare system over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: Two standard partitioned survival models were developed in this study comprising 3 health states in each model. The first model was to simulate outcomes and costs of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI alone in 2 target groups-first, in RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and second, in patients administered with 4 cycles of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, who underwent a resection of liver metastases. The second model compared FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in wild-type left-sided mCRC and after resection. All cost data and utilities were extracted from published data. RESULTS: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC compared with FOLFIRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Saudi Riyal (SAR) 180 880 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained ($102 019; cost-effective). After resection of liver metastases, it resulted in SAR140 442 ($79 211) per QALY gained (cost-effective). When comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, it resulted in SAR35 818 ($20 201) per QALY gained (highly cost-effective). After resection, it resulted in SAR109 612 ($61 822) per QALY gained (highly cost-effective). Thus, FOLFIRI plus cetuximab improved QALYs compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab at the minimized difference in costs in left-sided mCRC and patients with unresectable metastases. CONCLUSION: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or FOLFIRI alone in RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC and patients who undergo resection.

Suggested Modifications to the Management of Patients With Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Management of patients with cancer in the current era of the COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant challenge to health care systems. Breast cancer is the most common cancer internationally. Breast cancer is a disease that involves surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapy, radiotherapy, and, more recently, immunotherapy in its management plan. The immune system requires months to recover from these medications, and this condition is even worse in patients with metastatic breast cancer who need ongoing treatment with these drugs. Some of these drugs, such as inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, can cause rare but life-threating lung inflammation. Patients with breast cancer who have metastatic disease to the lungs can experience deterioration of disease symptoms with COVID-19 infection. Oncologists treating patients with breast cancer are facing a difficult situation regarding treatment choice. The impact that COVID-19 has had on breast cancer care is unknown, including how to provide the best care possible without compromising patient and community safety. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the views of oncologists regarding the management of patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A web-based SurveyMonkey questionnaire was submitted to licensed oncologists involved in breast cancer management in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates. The survey focused on characteristics of the participants, infection risk among patients with cancer, and possible treatment modifications related to different types of breast cancer. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 82 participants. For early hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, 61 of the 82 participants (74%) supported using neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in selected patients, and 58% (48/82) preferred giving 6 over 8 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy when indicated. Only 43% (35/82) preferred inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 with hormonal therapy as the first-line treatment in all patients with metastatic HR-positive disease. A total of 55 of the 82 participants (67%) supported using adjuvant trastuzumab for 6 instead of 12 months in selected patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. For metastatic HER2-positive, HR-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants (66/82) supported the use of hormonal therapy with dual anti-HER2 blockade in selected patients. The preferred choice of first-line treatment in metastatic triple negative patients with BRCA mutation and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% was poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor according to 41% (34/82) of the participants, and atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel was preferred for PD-L1 >1% according to 71% (58/82) of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Several modifications in breast cancer management were supported by the survey participants. These modifications need to be discussed on a local basis, taking into account the local infrastructure and available resources.

Budget impact analysis of subcutaneous trastuzumab compared to intravenous trastuzumab in Saudi HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

Background: This study was aimed to assess the budget impact of SC trastuzumab compared to IV trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (BC) from the perspective of the governmental health sector in Saudi Arabia, over a 3-year time horizon.Methods: A model was developed to calculate the direct medical and indirect costs for 394 incidents HER2-positive BC patients per year who would receive SC trastuzumab compared to IV formulation. We calculated drug acquisition costs for fixed, loading, and subsequent doses of trastuzumab. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted.Results: Two scenarios were modeled: the first scenario evaluated the impact of gradual replacement of IV formulation by SC, the second scenario, evaluated impact of totally replacing IV formulation. The total annual costs in the first scenario were estimated to be SAR 177 million (USD 98 million) for IV trastuzumab compared to SAR 143 million (USD 79 million) for SC formulation, leading to a total budget saving of SAR 34,527,346 (USD 19,181,858). In the second scenario, the total annual costs were estimated to be SAR 108 million (USD 60 million) for SC trastuzumab compared to SAR 177 million (USD 98 million) for IV formulation, leading to budget savings of SAR 69,054,692 (USD 36,363,717).Conclusion: Benefits of the SC formulation over IV infusions are being converted to realistic monetary benefits for all providers and payers.

Optimizing the Communication with Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: During curfew, patients are self-isolated at home and worried. Patient-doctor interactions may be disrupted and therefore need to be replaced by alternative effective communication methods. PURPOSE: To describe the preferences of cancer patients with respect to communication methods and the use of patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). To record the impact on cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic and the knowledge and attitude of the patients towards it. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We created a self-administered electronic survey that was piloted and evaluated for its clinical relevance. Using convenient sampling methods, we surveyed the cancer patients in our Oncology Center. RESULTS: We received 385 responses between April 15 and April 30, 2020. The preferred method for communication was a phone call with a 92% response rate followed by the electronic patient portal, mobile application, telemedicine and text message in 75%, 76%, 73%, and 72%, respectively. The majority (97%) preferred the use of PAEHRs for appointments, 95% for drug delivery and to view laboratory tests, and 92% in requesting medical reports. In our survey, 22% of patients with cancer reported that their medical cancer care had not been affected by COVID-19. They reported that trusted sources of information during COVID-19 included the Ministry of Health with 98% and doctors with 94%. Sixty-one percent know that they are more susceptible to COVID-19 infection and 91% of respondents supported the notion of digital transformation in the caring of cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a general acceptance of patients to telecommunication as substitute to in-person interaction with their physicians. Interaction between cancer patients and health care providers should not be disrupted but should be augmented with more effective platforms to improve health care outcomes.

Suggested modifications in oncology/hematology inpatient service in Saudi Arabia during coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Management of cancer patients in the current era of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses significant challenges on health-care systems. However, it is mandatory to keep the required level of care of cancer patients while taking the necessary precautions to maintain the safety of both patients and health-care professionals (HCPs). The present survey explores suggested modifications of inpatient oncology/hematology care during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based questionnaire using SurveyMonkey was distributed to HCPs taking care of inpatient hematology/oncology service including oncologists, hematologists, and inpatient nurses in Saudi Arabia. The 25 items selected for the survey focused on five domains including characteristics of HCPs, COVID-19 infection risk among admitted patients, possible modifications related to physicians/nursing practice, and suggested infection control measures. Clinical sensibility assessment was conducted to evaluate the comprehensiveness, clarity, and face validity of our instrument on a scale of 1-5. The percentages of HCP responses to the suggested modifications in the survey were assessed in descriptive statistics to summarize data and report views of participants. RESULTS: Of 215 HCPs, 195 responded and completed the survey. Of the respondents, 30.4% were medical oncologists, whereas hematologists and nurses constituted 6.7% and 62.9% of the participants, respectively. The majority of respondents (87.6%) work in governmental hospitals. The majority of participants (82%) have diagnosed patients with COVID-19 in their hospitals and modifications in inpatient practice during the COVID-19 pandemic were supported by 95% of respondents. The supported modifications by participants include enhanced use of oral medications (83.5%), phone calls to admitted stable patients by physicians, instead of physical interview (77%), decreasing frequency of vital signs assessment in stable patients (91%), decreasing the duration of stay in patients rooms (89%), using peripheral instead of central lines (76%), using video-based educational materials to patients through hospital TV network (91%), testing for COVID -19 before scheduled radiology imaging and procedures (74%), and performing routine nasopharyngeal swabs for HCPs (67%). CONCLUSION: Several modifications in inpatient oncology/hematology practice were supported by the survey participants. These suggestions need to be discussed on local basis considering local infrastructure, available resources, and level of required care.