Health-related quality of life in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia: results from the ASPEN trial.

Aim ASPEN is a randomized, open-label, Phase III study comparing zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). Materials & methods: Patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L VAS scores. Results: Overall, 201 patients (102 zanubrutinib; 99 ibrutinib) were enrolled. Clinically meaningful differences were observed in diarrhea and nausea/vomiting in both the intent-to-treat population and in patients attaining very good partial response (VGPR) in earlier cycles of treatment, as well as in long-term physical functioning and fatigue in patients achieving VGPR. Conclusion: Treatment with zanubrutinib was associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life compared with ibrutinib in patients with WM and MYD88 mutations.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03053440 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Patient quality of life is importantWhat is this article about? This article talks about a study called the ASPEN trial, which compares two medicines used for treating a rare blood cancer that doctors call Waldenström macroglobulinemia. The medicines are called zanubrutinib (ZAN) and ibrutinib (IBR). They work in the same way, by blocking a protein called Bruton tyrosine kinase. When patients take medicines for an illness, it is important to learn about their physical, social, emotional and mental well-being (quality of life). In this study, we asked patients to fill out questionnaires about their well-being before starting the study treatment for their blood cancer, and again a few times while taking the medication, to see if there were any changes.What were the results of the study? There were two groups of patients. One group took ZAN and the other took IBR. The patients could not choose which medicine they were going to take. Results from both groups of patients were compared. Patients taking ZAN did not feel worse or better about their diarrhea and sickness, but those taking IBR said these symptoms had become worse. Both medicines improved how patients were feeling. However, improvement in tiredness and physical ability was larger in patients taking ZAN than those on IBR, especially for the patients whose cancer was getting better.What do the results mean? For patients with a rare blood cancer in this study, those taking ZAN had a better quality of life than those taking IBR.

Effects of tislelizumab on health-related quality of life in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the RATIONALE-309 (NCT03924986) intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in a subgroup of patients with liver metastases. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to tislelizumab + chemotherapy or placebo + chemotherapy. As the secondary endpoint, HRQoL was evaluated using seven selected scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ Head and Neck Cancer module (QLQ-H&N35). RESULTS: Of 263 randomized patients in the ITT population (tislelizumab + chemotherapy n = 131, placebo + chemotherapy n = 132), 43% had liver metastases (tislelizumab + chemotherapy n = 56; placebo + chemotherapy n = 57). No differences in change in selected scores on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to cycle 4 or cycle 8 were observed for the ITT or liver metastases subgroup. No differences in selected QLQ-H&N35 scores were observed between the arms from baseline to cycle 4. In the ITT population and the liver metastases subgroup, a greater reduction from baseline to cycle 8 was observed in the tislelizumab + chemotherapy arm than the placebo + chemotherapy arm in QLQ-H&N35 pain score. At cycle 8 in the liver metastases subgroup, the tislelizumab + chemotherapy arm experienced greater improvement in the QLQ-H&N35 senses problems score than the placebo + chemotherapy arm. Differences in time to deterioration between arms were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings, along with improved survival and favorable safety, suggests that tislelizumab + chemotherapy represents a potential first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer.

Second-line tislelizumab versus chemotherapy in Japanese patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis from RATIONALE-302.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has a poor prognosis, with limited second-line systemic therapy options, and represents an increasing disease burden in Japan. In the phase 3 RATIONALE-302 study, the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody, tislelizumab, significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic ESCC. Here, we report the Japanese patient subgroup results. METHODS: Patients with advanced/metastatic ESCC, with disease progression during/after first-line systemic therapy were randomized 1:1 to open-label tislelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or investigator's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel/docetaxel). Efficacy and safety were assessed in all randomized Japanese patients. RESULTS: The Japanese subgroup comprised 50 patients (n = 25 per arm). Tislelizumab improved OS versus chemotherapy (median: 9.8 vs. 7.6 months; HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.31, 1.12). Among patients with programmed death-ligand 1 score ≥ 10%, median OS was 12.5 months with tislelizumab (n = 10) versus 2.9 months with chemotherapy (n = 6) (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.09, 1.03). Tislelizumab improved progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (median: 3.6 vs. 1.7 months, respectively; HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27, 0.95). Objective response rate was greater with tislelizumab (32.0%) versus chemotherapy (20.0%), and responses were more durable (median duration of response: 8.8 vs. 2.6 months, respectively). Fewer patients experienced ≥ grade 3 treatment-related adverse events with tislelizumab (24.0%) versus chemotherapy (47.8%). Tislelizumab demonstrated an improvement in health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: As second-line therapy for advanced/metastatic ESCC, tislelizumab improved OS versus chemotherapy, with a favorable safety profile, in the Japanese patient subgroup, consistent with the overall population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03430843.

Tislelizumab in advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: health-related quality of life in Asian patients.

OBJECTIVE: Post-hoc analysis examined health-related quality of life and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) symptoms in the Asian subgroup of patients in RATIONALE-302 (NCT03430843). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to either tislelizumab or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Health-related quality of life was measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-OES18. Least-squares mean score changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 18 in health-related quality-of-life scores were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measurements. Reported nominal p-values are for descriptive purposes only. RESULTS: Of the 512 patients, this analysis was conducted in 392 Asian patients (tislelizumab, n = 192; investigator-chosen chemotherapy, n = 200). The tislelizumab arm had stable global health status/quality of life, but fatigue scores worsened in both arms. The change from baseline was similar for physical functioning in both arms at weeks 12 and 18. Eating and dysphagia scores remained stable in the tislelizumab arm. Reflux improved at week 12 in the tislelizumab arm and worsened in the investigator-chosen chemotherapy arm. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the health-related quality of life and ESCC-related symptoms of patients receiving tislelizumab in the Asian subgroup remained stable or improved, while patients receiving investigator-chosen chemotherapy experienced worsening. These results in Asian patients corroborate the findings in the intent-to-treat population, suggesting tislelizumab is a potential new second-line treatment option for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The RATIONALE-302 study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03430843.

Health-related quality-of-life in treatment-naive CLL/SLL patients treated with zanubrutinib versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

OBJECTIVE: Zanubrutinib is a highly selective, next-generation Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In the phase 3 SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333), treatment with zanubrutinib resulted in significantly improved progression-free survival compared to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in adult patients with treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) without del(17p). The current analysis compared the effects of zanubrutinib versus BR on patients' health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). METHODS: In the SEQUOIA trial, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at baseline and every 12 weeks (3 cycles) using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L. Descriptive analyses were performed on all the questionnaires' scales and a mixed model for repeated measures was performed using the key QLQ-C30 endpoints of global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL), physical and role functioning, and symptoms of fatigue, pain, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting at weeks 12 and 24. RESULTS: Compared with BR-treated patients, those in the zanubrutinib arm experienced greater improvements in HRQoL outcomes at both weeks 12 and 24. By week 24, mean change differences (95% confidence interval) between the arms were significant for GHS/QoL (4.9 [0.9, 9.0]), physical functioning (3.8 [0.8, 6.7]), diarrhea (-6.2 [-10.0, -2.5]), fatigue (-4.5 [-8.9, -0.1]), and nausea/vomiting (-4.5 [-8.9, -0.1]); role functioning (4.8 [-0.2, 9.7]) was marginally better in the zanubrutinib arm and there were no differences in pain symptoms (-0.4 [-4.3, 5.1]) between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 24 weeks of treatment, zanubrutinib was associated with better HRQoL outcomes in patients with treatment-naive CLL/SLL without del(17p) compared to BR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SEQUOIA trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov as SEQUOIA trial (NCT03336333).

Health-related quality of life outcomes associated with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma: results from the ALPINE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients treated with zanubrutinib and ibrutinib in the ALPINE trial (NCT03734016). METHODS: HRQoL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L at baseline, cycle 1, and every third cycle until the end of treatment. Key patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints included global health status (GHS), physical and role functioning, as well as symptoms of fatigue, pain, diarrhea, and nausea/vomiting. A mixed model repeated-measure analysis using key PRO endpoints at key clinical cycles (cycles 7 and 13) was performed. RESULTS: 652 patients were randomized to receive zanubrutinib (n = 327) or ibrutinib (n = 325). By cycle 7, GHS scores improved with zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, and in cycle 13, GHS scores remained higher in the zanubrutinib arm. The zanubrutinib arm experienced clinically meaningful improvements in physical and role functioning, as well as pain and fatigue symptoms at both cycles. Patients in the zanubrutinib arm reported lower diarrhea scores. Nausea/vomiting scores maintained in both arms. EQ-VAS scores showed greater improvement from baseline at both cycle 7 (7.92 versus 3.44) and cycle 13 (7.75 versus 3.92) of treatment with zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with R/R CLL/SLL treated with zanubrutinib demonstrated improvement versus ibrutinib in the GHS scale at cycle 7. Other endpoints continued to improve, suggesting treatment with zanubrutinib positively affected HRQoL over time. Given the generally good HRQoL at baseline in both arms, the differences between the arms were not significant.

The effects of tislelizumab treatment on the health-related quality of life of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

This study examined the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving tislelizumab versus docetaxel in the open-label, multicenter, Phase 3 trial called RATIONALE-303 (NCT03358875). HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-LC13, and the EQ-5D-5L instruments. A longitudinal analysis of covariance assessed the change from baseline to Week 12 and from baseline to Week 18. A time to deterioration analysis was also performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Eight hundred and five patients were randomized to either tislelizumab (n = 535) or docetaxel, respectively (535 and 270 to tislelizumab and docetaxel, respectively). The tislelizumab arm improved while the docetaxel arm worsened in the QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL scale score (difference LS mean change Week 18: 5.7 [95% CI: 2.38, 9.07, p = 0.0008]), fatigue (Week 12: -3.2 [95% CI: -5.95, -0.37, p < 0.0266]; Week 18: -4.9 [95% CI: -8.26, -1.61, p = 0.0037]), and QLQ-LC13 symptom index score (Week 12: -5.5 [95% CI: -6.93, -4.04, P < 0.0001]; Week 18: -6.6 [95% CI: -8.25, -4.95, p < 0.0001]). The tislelizumab arm had improvements in coughing versus the docetaxel arm (Week 12: -4.7 [95% CI: -8.57, -0.78, p = 0.0188]; Week 18: -8.3 [95% CI: -13.02, -3.51, p = 0.0007]). The patients who received tislelizumab were less at risk for clinically meaningful worsening in the overall lung cancer symptom index scale (hazard ratio (HR): 0.24 [95% CI: 0.162, 0.356], p < 0.0001), dyspnea (HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.567, 0.958], p = 0.0109), coughing (HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.534, 1.019], p = 0.0309), and peripheral neuropathy (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.370, 0.810] p = 0.0011). In general, tislelizumab versus docetaxel was associated with improved HRQoL and symptoms of lung cancer in patients who previously failed treatment with platinum-containing chemotherapy.

Small cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor: a systematic literature review of treatment efficacy, safety and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: This systematic literature review examines the current immune checkpoint inhibitors treatment paradigms, treatment gaps and unmet needs for treating SCLC with respect to efficacy, safety, health related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A search strategy was developed and executed using the National Library of Medicine bibliographic database (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Embase and Google Scholar. Data regarding efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and HRQoL were extracted and entered in a data extraction sheet created a priori. RESULTS: A total of 4961 patients were comprised in all the 12 studies combined. All the studies focus on extensive stage SCLC (ES-SCLC) and not limited stage SCLC (LS-SCLC). All studies used an ICI as the intervention arm and chemotherapy as the control arm. A statistically significant increase in overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) was observed when ICIs were added to chemotherapy, especially atezolizumab and durvalumab. ICIs in SCLC resulted in immune-related toxicities that have been well-documented in prior immunotherapy trials; their addition to cytotoxic chemotherapy did not worsen chemotherapy-related toxicities. Out of 12 studies, only 3 (25%) included measures to assess the impact of immunotherapy on SCLC patients' HRQoL. Although domain level scores were limited, the addition of ICIs did not seem to worsen symptoms. Two studies conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the combination of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy. The addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was not found to be cost-effective in either study. CONCLUSION: Combining ICIs with chemotherapy enhanced OS and PFS as well as not worsening HRQoL. Among all ICIs, PD-L1 inhibitors showed better effectiveness. Future studies should focus on real-world settings and more clinical trials using ICIs for not only ES-SCLC but also LS-SCLC.

Real-World longitudinal practice patterns in the use of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors as First-Line therapy in patients with Non-Small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) axis (collectively referred to as PD[L]1i) have demonstrated clinical benefits in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The purpose of this United States-based real-world study is to examine changes in the landscape of first-line therapies for NSCLC since the introduction of PD(L)1i. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC initiating first-line treatment between May 1, 2017, and October 31, 2020, were identified in the IBM MarketScan® database. Patients were assigned groups based on first-line therapy: PD(L)1i monotherapy, chemotherapy alone, PD(L)1i with chemotherapy, or targeted therapy for patients with actionable driver mutations. RESULTS: A total of 5431 patients with NSCLC starting first-line treatment were identified: chemotherapy alone 2568 (47%), PD(L)1i with chemotherapy 1364 (25%), PD(L)1i monotherapy 790 (15%), and targeted therapy 709 (13%). The use of PD(L)1i monotherapy and targeted therapy remained consistent, while the percentage of patients receiving PD(L)1i with chemotherapy more than doubled. Over a third of patients in 2019 and 2020 received chemotherapy alone. Patients aged ≥65 years (odds ratio [OR]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.95), females (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.74-0.98), and those with respiratory (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71-0.94) or kidney (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.77) disease were less likely to have received PD(L)1i with chemotherapy than patients that received chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Since the approval of PD(L)1i for NSCLC, their use has significantly increased for first-line treatment, especially when used in combination with chemotherapy. A significant proportion of patients received chemotherapy alone.

Examining the Impact of Tislelizumab Added to Chemotherapy on Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Previously Untreated Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the effects of tislelizumab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nSQ-NSCLC). METHODS: Patients in this randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III study RATIONALE 304 (NCT03663205) with histologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV nSQ-NSCLC were randomized 2:1 to tislelizumab plus platinum-pemetrexed (arm T + PP) or platinum-pemetrexed alone (arm PP). Health-related QoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer. Key patient-reported outcome endpoints include mean score change from baseline at weeks 12 (during chemotherapy) and 18 (following chemotherapy) in the 30-item Quality of Life Questionnaire Core's global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) and time to deterioration in GHS/QoL. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-two patients received at least 1 dose of study drug and completed at least 1 HRQoL assessment. Global health status/QoL score improved in arm T + PP at week 18 (between-group least square mean difference, 5.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-10.5; P = 0.018). Patients in arm T + PP experienced greater reduction in coughing (-5.9; 95% CI, -11.6 to -0.1; P = 0.044), dyspnea (-3.8; 95% CI, -7.8 to 0.1; P = 0.059), chest pain (-6.2; 95% CI, -10.8 to -1.6; P = 0.008), and peripheral neuropathy (-2.6; 95% CI, -5.5 to 0.2; P = 0.066). Median time to deterioration in GHS/QoL was not achieved for either arm. DISCUSSION: The addition of tislelizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with improvements in nSQ-NSCLC patients' HRQoL as well as the important disease-specific symptoms of coughing, chest pain, and dyspnea.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03663205.

Psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-HCC18 in patients with previously treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

To demonstrate the measurement properties of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Hepatocellular Carcinoma 18-question module (EORTC QLQ-HCC18) within a previously treated, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) clinical trial population that was distinct from the published QLQ-HCC18 validation population. Analyses were conducted using data from BGB-A317-208, an open label, international, clinical trial assessing efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody tislelizumab in adult HCC patients. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and QLQ-HCC18 instruments were assessed at baseline and weeks 3 and 9 follow-up visits. Per US Food and Drug Administration guidance, psychometric validation of the QLQ-HCC18 included reliability (internal consistency and test-retest), construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity and known-groups validity), ability to detect change, and meaningful within-patient change (MWPC). Known-groups validity and MWPC analyses were also stratified on several pre-defined subgroups. A total of 248 patients were included. Only the QLQ-HCC18 fatigue, nutrition, and index domains demonstrated acceptable internal consistency; acceptable test-retest reliability was found for fatigue, body image, nutrition, pain, sexual interest, and index domains. The QLQ-HCC18 fatigue domain achieved the pre-specified criterion defining acceptable convergent and discriminant validity for 13 of 16 correlations, whereas the index domain achieved the pre-specified criterion for 14 of 16 correlations. Clear differentiation of the QLQ-HCC18 change scores between improvement and maintenance anchor groups were observed for body image, fatigue, pain, and index domains, whereas differentiation between deterioration and maintenance anchor groups were observed for fever and fatigue domains. MWPC point estimates defining improvement for the QLQ-HCC18 fatigue and index domains were -7.18 and -4.07, respectively; MWPC point estimates defining deterioration were 5.34 and 3.16, respectively. The EORTC QLQ-HCC18 fatigue and index domains consistently demonstrated robust psychometric properties, supporting the use of these domains as suitable patient-reported endpoints within a previously treated, unresectable HCC patient population.

Use of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors after first-line therapy in esophageal cancer patients in the US.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal cancer (EC) makes up 3.2% of all cancers but ranks sixth among cancer-related deaths worldwide. This real-world analysis determined the use of PD-1/PD-L1 (PD[L]1) inhibitors in EC patients after receiving first-line therapy. METHODS: Newly diagnosed EC patients initiating first-line treatment were identified in the IBM MarketScan administrative claims databases during the study period (1 May 2015 to 31 October 2020) using ICD-9/ICD-10 codes. Patients were assigned to either the chemotherapy only, radiation only, chemotherapy plus radiation (chemoradiation), or esophageal transhiatal/transthoracic surgery cohorts. RESULTS: 7276 EC patients started first-line therapy (chemotherapy only = 2502, radiation only = 3355, chemoradiation = 1180, surgery = 239). The average age at diagnosis was 62 years and 23% were female. The median time from start of first-line therapy to utilization of a PD(L)1 inhibitor was 259 days. Pembrolizumab (72%) was the most frequently used PD(L)1 inhibitor across the three cohorts, followed by nivolumab (25%). Furthermore, the number of patients receiving a PD(L)1 inhibitor increased each year with the majority (73%) of use occurring between 2018 and 2020. DISCUSSION: Findings from this real-world study suggest that PD(L)1 inhibitors are increasingly used after first-line therapies in EC, especially among patients initially receiving chemotherapy only. New immunological therapies such as PD(L)1 inhibitors hold great promise for patients with solid tumors. A clearer understanding of their real-world utilization is critical.

An observational, multicentre study of cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (CAPRISTANA).

OBJECTIVES: To obtain routine clinical practice data on cabazitaxel usage patterns for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to describe physician-assessed cabazitaxel effectiveness, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CAPRISTANA was an international, observational cohort study examining cabazitaxel use for the treatment of patients with mCRPC. Effectiveness was assessed by overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and disease control rate. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire (FACT-P) and the three-level European Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were treated across 54 centres between April 2012 and June 2016. At baseline, 58.7% had ≥1 comorbidity, 93.7% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and 60.1% had a Gleason score at diagnosis of ≥8. Patients received a median of 6 cabazitaxel cycles; 84.7% received cabazitaxel as second-line therapy. The median OS, PFS and TTF were 13.2, 5.6 and 4.4 months, respectively. Cabazitaxel led to disease control in 52.9% of patients. HRQoL was maintained (40.3%) or improved (32.2%) in 72.5% of patients based on total FACT-P scores. Interestingly, 53.6% of patients reported pain improvement and a further 21.2% maintained pain control based on FACT-P prostate cancer-specific pain scores. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (7.9%) and anaemia (2.1%). CONCLUSION: Patients in CAPRISTANA treated with cabazitaxel had similar disease outcomes and safety profiles compared with large phase III clinical trials. Most patients had maintained or improved HRQoL scores; >70% of patients had maintained or improved pain control.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor switching in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia.

Differences in healthcare utilization and costs were examined in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients experiencing first-, second- and third-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Three CML cohorts were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan® database: No-Switch Cohort (NSc) = did not switch from first-line; One-Switch Cohort (OSc) = switched from first- to second-line only; Two-Switch Cohort (TSc) = switched to second- and then third-line. A total of 3510 patients were identified (mean = 54%; age = 55.8 years). NSc comprised 81% of the sample, OSc comprised 15% and 4% were in the TSc. First-line utilization/costs were significantly higher in the OSc/TSc compared to the NSc. Second-line hospital/outpatient visits and costs were higher in TSc compared to OSc. TSc experienced a significant cost increase from first- to second-line ($4226.46), twice that of OSc ($2488.03). TKI switching is associated with a substantial increase in healthcare utilization and costs, particularly for patients who switch twice.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treating Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia Patients With Arsenic Trioxide and Retinoic Acid in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of arsenic trioxide (ATO) added to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) when used in first-line acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed with 3 states: stable disease (during first- or second-line treatment), disease event, and death. Newly diagnosed patients with low- to intermediate-risk APL were included and each month could remain in their current health state or move to another. Treatment consisted of ATO + ATRA, ATRA + idarubicin (IDA), or ATRA + cytarabine (AraC) + additional chemotherapy. After an initial disease event, patients discontinued first-line therapy and switched to a second-line ATO regimen. Efficacy and safety data were obtained from published trials; quality of life/utility estimates were obtained from the literature; costs were obtained from US data sources. Costs and outcomes over time were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared to ATRA + AraC + additional chemotherapy, ATRA + IDA treatment had ICERs of $2933 per life-year (LY) saved and $3122 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared to the ATRA + IDA regimen, first-line ATO + ATRA treatment had ICERs of $4512 per LY saved and $5614 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to changes in pharmacy costs of the ATO + ATRA regimen during consolidation. CONCLUSION: The ATO + ATRA regimen is highly cost-effective compared to ATRA + AraC + additional chemotherapy or ATRA + IDA in the treatment of newly diagnosed low- to intermediate-risk APL patients.

Budgetary impact of treating acute promyelocytic leukemia patients with first-line arsenic trioxide and retinoic acid from an Italian payer perspective.

The objective of this study was to estimate the net cost of arsenic trioxide (ATO) added to all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) compared to ATRA plus chemotherapy when used in first-line acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) treatment for low to intermediate risk patients from the perspective of the overall Italian healthcare systemA Markov model was developed with 3 health states: stable disease, disease event and death. Each month, patients could move from stable to disease event or die from either state. After a disease event, patients discontinued initial treatment and switched to the other regimen as second-line therapy. Treatment regimens, efficacy and adverse events were derived from published sources and expert opinion; unit costs were collected from standard Italian sources. Clinical outcomes and costs for pre-ATO and post-ATO scenarios were combined with population and product utilization information to calculate the total budgetary impact using a 3-year time horizon; one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. Three-year cumulative pharmacy costs for ATO+ATRA were €46,700 per-patient versus €6,500 for ATRA+chemotherapy; however, medical costs for ATO+ATRA were €12,300 per-patient versus €30,200 for ATRA+chemotherapy. The total budgetary impact was estimated to be an additional €127,300, €312,500 and €477,800 in the first, second and third years, respectively. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of the ATO+ATRA regimen during the consolidation phase. Budgetary impact models are valuable to payers making formulary decisions regarding the access and affordability of new medicines. The cost of treatment analysis showed that pharmacy costs for ATO+ATRA were higher than for ATRA+chemotherapy, while all other evaluated costs were lower for ATO+ATRA treated patients. The average budgetary impact was €305,900 per year overall, representing a 3.5% increase. Further research is needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of ATO+ATRA compared to the current first-line standard of care in APL.

Effectiveness of homoharringtonine (omacetaxine mepesuccinate) for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia: a meta-analysis of Chinese studies.

The present meta-analysis provides an overview on the effectiveness of homoharringtonine (HHT) combination regimens to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Because most of these studies were performed in China, Chinese published clinical studies were used for the analysis. A search for studies from 2006 to 2013 of regimens containing HHT for AML treatment was performed using published studies and Chinese databases in Mandarin. The complete response (CR) and overall response (OR) rates were analyzed, and the fixed effects model and random effects model (REM) were calculated. The heterogeneity of the studies was calculated using Q homogeneity statistics. The meta-analysis included 21 studies (n = 1310, n = 229 pediatric, and n = 216 elderly). HHT was given in combination with cytarabine, daunorubicin, idarubicin, aclacinomycin, mitoxantrone, or granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Heterogeneity was seen in all analyzed pools, but it was most pronounced in retrospective studies. Overall, the REM showed a CR rate of 65.2%. However, in studies in which HHT-containing regimens were compared to regimens without HHT, the CR rates were 69.1% in randomized trials and 62.8% in retrospective studies. Additionally, in studies with exclusively elderly patients, the CR rate was considerably lower than it was for the studies with mixed age populations (47.5% vs. 65.2%). Higher overall CR rates for HHT-containing regimens in AML treatment in the Chinese studies suggest that HHT could be an active agent in the management of AML. Additional clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of HHT in AML treatment.

G-CSF utilization rate and prescribing patterns in United States: associations between physician and patient factors and GCSF use.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common complication among patients with chemotherapy-induced myelotoxicity and is associated with a number of negative outcomes including prolonged hospitalization, increased medical costs, increased risk of mortality, dose reductions, and delays. Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and pegylated G-CSF are effective at reducing risk and duration of neutropenia-related events. However, despite guidelines, the use of G-CSF and pegylated G-CSF in the United States has not been consistent and pattern of care studies have focused primarily on G-CSF. A number of studies found that G-CSF is underutilized in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatments associated with a high risk of FN, while being over utilized in patients with a low-risk FN. Wide variations in overuse, underuse, and misuse of G-CSF are associated with a number of physician and patient factors. Improved awareness of the guidelines, feedback to providers regarding proper usage, and understanding of chemotherapy regimens associated with very low risks as well as high risks (>20%) of FN is some of the approaches that could lead to improving care.

Pharmacoeconomics of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: a critical review.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, neutropenia-related hospitalization is estimated to occur in 34.2 cases per 1,000 chemotherapy-treated patients. The cost of hospitalization is significant with estimates ranging, on average, from $10,000 to $30,000 per neutropenia-related hospitalization. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) significantly reduces the risk and duration of neutropenia-related negative events. However, the exact economic benefits of using G-CSF prophylactically are not completely known. The objective of this review is to examine the cost of G-CSF as primary prophylaxis (PP) as well as when used reactively to treat severe neutropenia (SN) or febrile neutropenia (FN). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies published up to January 2014. RESULTS: The evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF is inconsistent. The cost savings of PP use of G-CSF associated with the reduction of neutropenia-related events are offset by the increased costs associated with improved chemotherapy administration. Cost savings due to the reduction in mortality and disease/symptoms and use of dose-dense regimens have not been adequately incorporated into previous cost-effectiveness studies. Available data suggest that using G-CSF in conjunction with antibiotics is more cost-effective than antibiotics alone when treating patients with SN/FN. Recent studies of biosimilars suggest that they are as effective as originator G-CSFs and, given their lower cost, could represent a cost-effective alternative. Finally, studies have not taken into consideration the indirect patient costs of experiencing a neutropenia-related event. CONCLUSION: G-CSF use is effective in preventing SN/FN. Costs due to hospitalization and other neutropenia-related events are lower in patients treated with G-CSF as PP versus untreated patients. Despite this, many studies have not found solid evidence for the overall cost-effectiveness of PP use of G-CSF. One possibility for this is that patients receiving G-CSF prophylactically often receive more intense chemotherapy regimens, have better relative dose intensity, and fewer dose delays, and thereby have greater costs associated with chemotherapy administration than patients who do not receive G-CSF.