Real-world treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in the USA, Europe and Asia.

Aim: To characterize real-world patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and treating physicians and evaluate treatment trends and baseline concordance versus guidelines internationally. Materials & methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional data from the Ipsos Global Oncology Monitor database 2018-2020 were used for descriptive analysis of mHSPC patients, treating physicians and treatment utilization. Results: Among the 6198 mHSPC patients from five countries, the most common treatment was either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy or first-generation androgen receptor inhibitor + ADT. Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor use was only initiating but increasing over the study period. Conclusion: Despite contemporaneous guidelines recommending treatment intensification of ADT in combination with novel antihormonals or docetaxel, 76.1% of reported mHSPC patients received non-guideline-concordant care.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related death globally. Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) refers to the stage of prostate cancer where it has spread to other parts of the body ('metastatic') but still responds to hormonal therapy ('hormone-sensitive'), such as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Treatment guidelines around the world for men with mHSPC have changed over time, but there remains a lack of understanding of how well guidelines are followed in real-world practice. Consequently, this study analyzes real-world data from five countries between 2018 and 2020 to understand treatment patterns, baseline concordance versus guidelines and potential drivers of treatment trends. The study found prevalent use of ADT monotherapy and older antihormonal agents, and only marginal but increasing use of novel antihormonals in real-world practice. These practices deviate from guidelines from the study period, which generally recommended ADT combination with either newer antihormonal agents or docetaxel for patients with mHSPC. Overall, the proportion of the 6198 patients treated with non­guideline-concordant therapies was 76.1%. Since guideline-recommended care is associated with better outcomes, this baselining finding highlights the need for appropriate treatment selection and intensification for mHSPC patients.

The Hospitalization-Related Costs of Adverse Events for Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Three novel androgen receptor inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. All three therapies have demonstrated prolonged metastasis-free survival in their respective phase III trials, with differing safety profiles. The objective of this study was to compare the mean per-patient costs of all-cause adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization between darolutamide versus apalutamide and enzalutamide for nmCRPC in the USA. METHODS: All-cause grade ≥ 3 AEs with corresponding any-grade AEs reported among at least 10% of patients in any arm of the ARAMIS (darolutamide), SPARTAN (apalutamide), and PROSPER (enzalutamide) trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. After matching-adjusted indirect comparison, AE costs were calculated by multiplying the AE rates from the trials by their respective unit costs of hospitalization taken from the US Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database. Sensitivity analyses which further included any-grade AEs reported among at least 5% of patients were also performed. RESULTS: After reweighting and adjusting for the trials' placebo arms, the mean per-patient AE costs were $1021 and $387 lower for darolutamide than for apalutamide and enzalutamide, respectively, over the trials' duration (SPARTAN and PROSPER, 43 months; ARAMIS, 48 months). For darolutamide vs. apalutamide, the largest drivers of the per-patient cost differences were fracture (adjusted difference $416), hypertension ($143), and rash ($219); for darolutamide vs. enzalutamide, they were fatigue not including asthenia ($290) and hypertension including increased blood pressure (i.e., any AE of hypertension or with elevated blood pressure not yet classified as hypertension) ($60). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nmCRPC treated with darolutamide in ARAMIS incurred lower AE-related costs (USD), as determined using HCUP costing data, compared with patients treated with either apalutamide (in SPARTAN) or enzalutamide (in PROSPER).

Indirect Comparison of Darolutamide versus Apalutamide and Enzalutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: No published head-to-head randomized trials have compared the safety and efficacy of darolutamide vs apalutamide or enzalutamide in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. This study compares prespecified adverse events and metastasis-free survival associated with darolutamide vs apalutamide, and darolutamide vs enzalutamide, via matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from the phase III ARAMIS trial (NPLACEBO=553; NDAROLUTAMIDE=943) were selected and reweighted to match the inclusion criteria and baseline characteristics published for the phase III SPARTAN (NPLACEBO=401; NAPALUTAMIDE=806) and PROSPER (NPLACEBO=468; NENZALUTAMIDE=933) trials. Only baseline factors consistently reported across trials were included as matching covariates. Both indirect comparisons matched on age, prostate specific antigen level and doubling time, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Gleason score, and bone-sparing agent use. Darolutamide vs apalutamide also matched on prior surgery and darolutamide vs enzalutamide also matched on region. Risk differences and odds ratios were calculated for adverse events and hazard ratios for metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: No differences in metastasis-free survival hazard ratios were found after matching in either comparison. However, fall, fracture and rash rates were statistically significantly lower in favor of darolutamide vs apalutamide. Fall, dizziness, mental impairment, fatigue and severe fatigue rates were statistically significantly lower in favor of darolutamide vs enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: While metastasis-free survival did not differ across drugs in these cross-trial indirect comparisons, darolutamide showed a favorable safety and tolerability profile in prespecified adverse events vs apalutamide and enzalutamide. Consideration of these adverse events is important in clinical decision-making and treatment selection in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Patient and caregiver benefit-risk preferences for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recently approved second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine how nmCRPC patients and caregivers perceive the benefits versus risks of these new treatments. METHODS: An online DCE survey with 14 treatment choice questions was administered to nmCRPC patients and caregivers. Each choice question compared two hypothetical medication profiles varying in terms of 5 safety attributes (risk or severity of adverse events [AEs]: fatigue, skin rash, cognitive problems, serious fall, and serious fracture) and two efficacy attributes (duration of overall survival [OS] and time to pain progression). Random parameters logit models were used to estimate each attribute's relative importance. We also estimated the amounts of OS that respondents were willing to forego for a reduction in AEs. RESULTS: In total, 143 nmCRPC patients and 149 caregivers viewed the AEs in following order of importance (most to least): serious fracture, serious fall, cognitive problems, fatigue, and skin rash. On average, patients were willing to trade 5.8 and 4.0 months of OS to reduce the risk of serious fracture and fall, respectively, from 3% to 0%; caregivers were willing to trade 6.6 and 5.4 months of OS. CONCLUSIONS: nmCRPC patients and caregivers preferred treatments with lower AE burdens and were willing to forego OS to reduce the risk and severity of AEs. Our results highlight the importance of carefully balancing risks and benefits when selecting treatments in this relatively asymptomatic population.

Physician preferences for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent approvals of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs) have changed the treatment landscape for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). These SGARIs have similar efficacy but differ in safety profiles. We used a discrete choice experiment to explore how United States physicians make treatment decisions between adverse events (AEs) and survival gains in nmCRPC, a largely asymptomatic disease. METHODS: Treating physicians (n = 149) participated in an online survey that included 14 treatment choice questions, each comparing 2 hypothetical treatment profiles, which varied in terms of 5 safety and 2 efficacy attributes. We described safety attributes (fatigue, skin rash, cognitive problems, falls, and fractures) in terms of severity and frequency, and efficacy attributes (overall survival [OS] and time to pain progression) in terms of duration of effect. We used a random parameters logit model to estimate preference weights and importance scores for each attribute. We also estimated the amount of survival gain physicians were willing to trade for a reduction in specific AEs between treatment options. RESULTS: Physicians placed more importance on survival than on time to pain progression, and viewed a reduction in cognitive problems from severe to none, a reduction in risk of a serious fracture from 8% to none, and a reduction in fatigue from severe to none as the most important safety attributes. Physicians were willing to forego 9.1 and 6.6 months of OS, respectively, to reduce cognitive problems and fatigue from severe to mild-to-moderate. To reduce the risk of a serious fracture from 8 to 5% and 5% to none, physicians were willing to trade 3.9 and 5.3 months of OS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians were willing to trade substantial amounts of survival to avoid AEs between hypothetical treatments. These results emphasize the importance of carefully balancing therapies' benefits and risks to ultimately optimize the overall quality of nmCRPC patients' survival. Nonetheless, it is noted that the results from the study sample of 149 physicans may not be representative of the viewpoints of all nmCRPC-treating physicians.

Direct medical costs of treatment in newly-diagnosed high-grade glioma among commercially insured US patients.

AIM: This analysis assessed the direct medical costs of newly-diagnosed, temozolomide (TMZ)-treated glioblastoma (GBM) from the perspective of a US commercial setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis included subjects identified from the IMS PharMetrics LifeLink Plus™ claims database from January 1, 2008 to August 31, 2014 who were ≥18 years of age, had ≥1 malignant brain cancer diagnosis, had brain surgery ≤90 days prior to TMZ initiation, had TMZ treatment, and were continuously enrolled for ≥12 months pre-diagnosis and ≥1 month post-diagnosis. Per-patient per-month (PPPM) and cumulative costs from 3 months pre-diagnosis to various post-diagnosis follow-up time points were calculated. Multivariable analyses were used to estimate adjusted mean cost and identify contributors of cost. RESULTS: The study included 2,921 subjects (median age = 56 years; 60% male). After diagnosis, the median (interquartile range, IQR) number of inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient visits were 2 (1-4), 1 (1-3), and 19 (13-27); median (IQR) length of stay per hospitalization was 5 (3-9) days. Mean total cumulative costs per patient from 3 months pre-diagnosis to 12 months and to 5 years post-diagnosis were $201,749 (197,490-206,024) and $268,031 (262,877-274,416). Mean (SD) PPPM costs were $818 (1,128) and $7,394 (8,676) pre- and post-GBM diagnosis, respectively. The variables most predictive of cumulative costs included radiation therapy (+$81,732), ≥2 weeks of hospitalization (+$49,629), and ≥7 MRI scans (+$40,105). CONCLUSIONS: The direct medical costs of newly-diagnosed, TMZ-treated GBM in commercially insured patients are substantial, with estimated total cumulative costs of $268,031.

The Importance of Economic Perspective and Quantitative Approaches in Oncology Value Frameworks of Drug Selection and Shared Decision Making.

The debate around value in oncology drug selection has been prominent in recent years, and several professional bodies have furthered this debate by advocating for so-called value frameworks. Herein, we provide a viewpoint on these value frameworks, emphasizing the need to consider 4 key aspects: (1) the economic underpinnings of value; (2) the importance of the perspective adopted in the valuation; (3) the importance of the difference between absolute and relative measures of risk and measuring patient preferences; and (4) the recognition of multiple quality-of-life (QoL) domains, and the aggregation and valuation of those domains, through utilities within a multicriteria decision analysis, may allow prioritization of QoL above the tallying of safety events, particularly in a value framework focusing on the individual patient. While several frameworks exist, they incorporate different attributes and-importantly-assess value from alternative perspectives, including those of patients, regulators, payers, and society. The various perspectives necessarily lead to potentially different, if not sometimes divergent, conclusions about the valuation. We show that the perspective of the valuation affects the framing of the risk/benefit question and the methodology to measure the individual patient choice, or preference, as opposed to the collective, or population, choice. We focus specifically on the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework. We argue that its laudable intent to assist in shared clinician-patient decision making can be augmented by more formally adopting methodology underpinned by micro- and health economic concepts, as well as application of formal quantitative approaches. Our recommendations for value frameworks focusing on the individual patient, such as the ASCO Value Framework, are 3-fold: (1) ensure that stakeholders understand the importance of the adopted (economic) perspective; (2) consider using exclusively absolute measures of risk and formal patient-preference methodology; and (3) consider foregoing safety parameters for higher-order utility considerations. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for conceptualizing, writing, and/or editing this manuscript. Waldeck and White are employees of, and received stock option grants from, Celldex Therapeutics. Van Hout and Botteman are employees and shareholders of Pharmerit International. Pharmerit International is a research contractor for Celldex. All authors have retained editorial control of the content of the manuscript. Conceptualization of this viewpoint article was contributed primarily by Waldeck, along with Botteman, White, and van Hout. Data analysis and revision of the manuscript was contributed equally by all the authors. The manuscript was written by Waldeck, Botteman, van Hout, and White.