Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in patients diagnosed with epithelial type ovarian cancer.

Introduction: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed critical challenges in providing care to ovarian cancer (OC) patients, including delays in OC diagnosis and treatment initiation. To accommodate for delays in OC surgery, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) recommended preferential use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use in patients diagnosed with OC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with stage II-IV ovarian cancer of epithelial subtype between 01/01/2017-06/30/2021 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), a large integrated healthcare system in the United States. Ovarian cancer patients diagnosed between 2017-2020 were identified from KPSC's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-affiliated cancer registry. Patients diagnosed in 2021 were identified from the electronic medical records (EMR) using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, followed by medical chart review to validate diagnosis and extract information on histology and stage at diagnosis. March 4, 2020 was used as the cut-off to define pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between OC diagnosis and treatment completion were excluded. Data on neoadjuvant chemotherapy use were extracted from the cancer registry and EMR, supplemented by chart review. Modified Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association of the pandemic with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Results: Of 566 OC patients, 160 (28.3%) were diagnosed in the pandemic period. Patients diagnosed in the pandemic period were slightly younger (mean age 62.7 vs 64.9 years, p=0.07) and had a higher burden of Charlson comorbidities (p=0.05) than patients diagnosed in pre-pandemic period. No differences in time to treatment initiation were observed by pandemic periods. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy use was documented in 58.7% patients during the pandemic period compared to 47.3% in pre-pandemic period (p=0.01). After adjusting for covariates, patients diagnosed in the pandemic period were 29% more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients diagnosed in pre-pandemic period [RR(95%CI): 1.29(1.12-1.49)]. Discussions: Ovarian cancer patients diagnosed in the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy than patients diagnosed before the pandemic. Future research on patient outcomes and trends in the post-pandemic period are warranted.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with high-risk locally advanced cervical cancer (HR-LACC). METHODS: This retrospective study identified and randomly selected adults diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 from the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset. For patients initially treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), we estimated real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) among those with persistent disease, real-world time on CCRT, and recurrence-free survival (rwRFS) using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: The cohort included 300 patients. Median age at diagnosis was 51 years. 53.7 % were White and 30.0 % were Black; 52.0 % were premenopausal; 89.3 % had squamous cell histology; 75.3 % had stage III disease, and 92.7 % had no evidence of performance status impairment. Initial treatment included CCRT (N = 229), surgery (N = 28), antineoplastics only (N = 11), and radiation only (N = 5). Twenty-seven patients were untreated. Baseline characteristics for the CCRT-first patients were similar to the overall cohort; their median real-world time on treatment was 1.6 months; 78.2 % received cisplatin for a median of 1.2 months; 28.4 % received antineoplastics after CCRT, and 11.8 % initiated a second antineoplastic therapy. Of the CCRT-first patients, 27/143 with a complete response had subsequent recurrent disease (median rwRFS not reached). 179 patients had persistent disease, among whom median (95 % confidence interval [CI]) rwPFS was 29.7 (16.9-59.3) months. CONCLUSION: In this study of United States-based clinical practices, most HR-LACC patients received CCRT as initial treatment. Many patients developed persistent disease after CCRT indicating a need for improved first treatment and maintenance options.

Prognosis and conditional survival among women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: An important question in determining long-term prognosis for women with ovarian cancer is whether risk of death changes the longer a woman lives. Large real-world datasets permit assessment of conditional survival (CS) given both prior overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS). METHODS: Using a longitudinal dataset from US oncology centers, this study included 6778 women with ovarian cancer. We calculated CS rates as the Kaplan-Meier probability of surviving an additional 1 or 5 years, given no mortality (OS) or disease progression (rwPFS) event in the previous 0.5-5 years since first-line chemotherapy initiation, adjusted for factors associated with OS based on multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Median study follow-up was 9 years (range, 1-44) from first-line initiation to data cutoff (17-Feb-2021). Median OS was 58.0 months (95% CI, 54.9-60.8); median rwPFS was 18.4 months (17.4-19.4). The adjusted 1-year CS rate (ie, rate of 1 year additional survival) did not vary based on time alive, whereas the adjusted 5-year CS rate increased from 48.5% (47.0%-50.1%) for women who had already survived 6 months to 66.4% (63.3%-69.6%) for those already surviving 5 years (thus surviving 10 years total). The adjusted 1-year CS rate increased from 90.4% (89.5%-91.4%) with no rwPFS event at 6 months to 97.6% (96.4%-98.8%) with no rwPFS event at 5 years; adjusted 5-year CS rate increased from 53.7% (52.0%-55.5%) to 85.0% (81.2%-88.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis extends the concept of CS by also conditioning on time progression-free. Patients with longer rwPFS experience longer survival than patients with shorter rwPFS.

Health care services utilization in patients with ovarian cancer receiving PARP inhibitor maintenance treatment in a US community oncology setting.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe healthcare resource use (HCRU) in addition to treatment patterns and discontinuations, in patients with ovarian cancer (OC) initiating PARP inhibitor (PARPi) maintenance treatment in a US community oncology setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with OC initiating PARPi monotherapy maintenance during 01/01/2017 to 06/30/2019 (followed until 12/31/2019). Patients aged ≥18 years at first diagnosis of OC with ≥2 visits within The US Oncology Network were included. Structured and chart review data as well as claims data were used to describe treatment patterns and HCRU. RESULTS: Of the 162 charts reviewed, the median age of patients was 66 years and 80% had stage III or IV disease at diagnosis. In the niraparib, rucaparib and olaparib groups, proportions of patients experiencing dose interruptions were 51%, 50%, and 28%, and discontinuations due to toxicity were 37%, 17% and 15%, respectively. Within the first 6 months, mean numbers of total claims were 43.5, 56.4, and 36.0 in the niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib groups, and laboratory claims were 13.9, 19.4, and 15.6, respectively. Proportions of patients with hospitalizations (niraparib 40%, rucaparib 32%, olaparib 19%; p = 0.03), also differed as did emergency department visits (niraparib 37%, rucaparib 23%, olaparib 16%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Despite patients initiating niraparib having higher rates of dose management events and toxicity-related discontinuations, outpatient and laboratory utilization were similar across all three PARPi. Adequate monitoring of these medications, with differing toxicities, should be emphasized to potentially decrease dose reductions and toxicities.

The burden of ovarian cancer in the USA from 2007 to 2018: evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Aim: To evaluate the economic and humanistic burden of ovarian cancer in the USA. Methods: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007-2018) were used to estimate all-cause healthcare resource use and costs for economic burden and examine the activities of daily living and quality-of-life (QoL) measures for humanistic burden between ovarian cancer patients and a non-cancer population. Results: Compared with controls, patients with ovarian cancer had more comorbidities and worse QoL. Their predicted number of annual hospitalizations and office-based visits was significantly higher, as were their estimated annual all-cause total healthcare costs. Total costs were driven by hospitalization costs. Conclusion: The study identified the burden of ovarian cancer and demonstrated that patients with ovarian cancer have greater healthcare resource use, higher costs and worse QoL than the non-cancer population. Future research is needed to develop strategies for managing ovarian cancers and inform decision-making to reduce disease burden.

What is this article about? The article discusses the impact that ovarian cancer has, both in terms of economics and quality of life. We used data from 2007 to 2018 to identify women with ovarian cancer as well as women without cancer for the sake of comparison. What were the results? We found that individuals with ovarian cancer face considerable burdens, and their treatment costs have a notable impact on healthcare systems. Compared with women without cancer, women with ovarian cancer are older and have a greater number of additional illnesses, and their quality of life is lower. Their use of healthcare resources is greater and hence the costs associated with their treatment are higher. What do the results of the study mean? This study adds to the existing data about the burden imposed by ovarian cancer, on individuals as well as on healthcare systems. Interventions are needed to reduce the impacts of the disease.

Patient profiles, treatment patterns, and outcomes among persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer patients under routine care in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer have poor prognosis. While recent advances have expanded treatment options, real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes in this population are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective study identified adult females with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer from the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset who received systemic therapy on or after August 15, 2014. Patients were followed from persistent, recurrent, or metastatic diagnosis through third-line (3 L) therapy, death, end of record, or study end (June 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. Kaplan-Meier methods were used for the three most common first-line (1 L) regimens to analyze real-world time on treatment (rwToT), real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), and real-world overall survival (rwOS). Analyses were stratified by bevacizumab receipt by treatment line. RESULTS: 307 patients were included (mean [standard deviation] age 51.5 [13.2] years, 70.7% White). 91.2% of patients had metastatic disease, 8.5% had persistent disease, and <1% had recurrent disease. The most common 1 L regimen was carboplatin+paclitaxel+bevacizumab (40.7%) with median (95% confidence interval [CI]) rwToT of 3.5 (2.9-4.4) months. 57.0% of patients proceeded to second line (2 L), and 25.7% went to 3 L. Median (95% CI) rwPFS was 7.2 (6.4-8.1) months, and median (95% CI) rwOS was 16.5 (14.2-19.9) months, from initiation of 1 L. CONCLUSIONS: 1 L regimens received in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer generally followed clinical guidelines, and the rwOS agrees with clinical trials. This study highlights the burden of disease and unmet need for specific treatments in these patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biomarker Testing to Guide First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance for Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Response to First-Line Platinum Chemotherapy in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance treatments are available for platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. Olaparib (O) is available for BRCA mutation patients or in combination with bevacizumab (O+B) for patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD+); niraparib (N) is available for all patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of biomarker testing and maintenance treatments (mTx) with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer in the USA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten strategies were evaluated (S1-S10), representing biomarker testing (none, BRCA or HRD), and mTx (O, O+B, N or B). PAOLA-1 data were used to build a model estimating progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2) and overall survival for O+B. PFS was modelled through mixture cure models; PFS2 and overall survival were modelled by standard parametric models. Hazard ratios of PFS for O+B versus B, N and O were obtained from the literature to estimate PFS for B, N and O. PFS2 and OS for B, N and O were informed by PFS benefits. RESULTS: S2 (no testing, B) had the lowest cost while S10 (HRD testing, O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD-) had the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). All niraparib strategies were dominated. S2, S4 (BRCA testing, O for BRCA+ and B for BRCA-), S6 (BRCA testing, olaparib plus bevacizumab for BRCA+ and bevacizumab for BRCA-) and S10 were the non-dominated strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,095/QALY, $33,786/QALY and $52,948/QALY for S4 versus S2, S6 versus S4 and S10 versus S6, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous recombination deficiency testing followed by O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD- is a highly cost-effective strategy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. A HRD biomarker-guided approach provides most QALYs with good economic value.

Comparison of advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with or without bevacizumab in the US Community Oncology Clinics.

Aim: Real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes of advanced ovarian cancer (OC) patients since bevacizumab approval in first-line (1L) OC treatment were assessed. Materials & methods: In this descriptive retrospective study using the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset, patient characteristics, treatment patterns and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) from start of 1L were evaluated among patients diagnosed with advanced OC between 2011-2020. Treatment data from structured sources were confirmed and/or supplemented by human review of unstructured data. Results: Median rwPFS for bevacizumab and non bevacizumab cohorts was 17.3 months (95% CI: 14.9, 20.4) and 15.7 months (95% CI: 12.3, 29.1), respectively. Patients with ≥10 doses during 1L had higher median rwPFS compared with patients receiving 3-9 doses. Conclusion: This real-world study suggests benefits of bevacizumab treatment in advanced OC were primarily experienced by patients who received ≥10 doses in 1L.

What is this article about? Bevacizumab (Avastin) is a medicine that treats cancer. It makes it harder for the cancer to get nutrients from blood. At first, you could only use it after other cancer medicine did not work. From 2018, bevacizumab could be used with cancer medicine as the first treatment. Experts said it should continue for a year after cancer medicine stopped. This would make it harder for the cancer to come back. What did we do? We checked if more patients got bevacizumab as their first medicine after 2018 approval. We also saw how long it took for the cancer to come back. We did this by looking at electronic medical records between January 2011 and August 2020. We looked for women who had cancer that was staring to spread or had spread. We compared women who got bevacizumab to women who only got other cancer medicines. What were the results? After 2018, more women got bevacizumab early. We saw that the cancer did not take longer to come back. We noticed that half the women took bevacizumab less than ten-times out of up to 22-times. The cancer took longer to come back for women who took bevacizumab ten or more times. What do the result mean? We do not know why so many women stopped treatment early. Other studies in different countries also showed better results for women who got more bevacizumab. This study can help doctors and patients decide how much bevacizumab to give when they might be thinking of stopping treatment.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (KEYNOTE-826): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826. METHODS: KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1-14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)-quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1-24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS-QoL score from baseline to week 30 was -0·3 points (95% CI -3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and -1·3 points (-4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI -2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS-QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6-NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS-QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003). INTERPRETATION: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab Compared with Bevacizumab Monotherapy for the First-Line Maintenance Treatment of Homologous Recombination Deficiency-Positive Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the PAOLA-1 trial, olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated significant clinical benefit following partial or complete response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive ovarian cancer. Our study evaluated the cost effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as a maintenance treatment for women in this population. METHODS: Our model was a cohort-level partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon from a US healthcare system perspective. Its four health states were progression-free, post first progression, post second progression, and death, modeled using time to first progression (PFS1), second progression (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) from PAOLA-1. We modeled PFS1 through mixture survival modeling, and PFS2 and OS by fitting standard parametric models. Time-on-treatment was sourced directly from PAOLA-1, with treatment capped at 24 months for olaparib and 15 months for bevacizumab. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, biomarker testing, and subsequent treatments. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the results. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; +2.89) and life-years (LYs; +3.43) at an incremental cost of $164,209, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $56,863 per QALY. Olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 97.0% probability of being cost effective compared with bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab led to clinically significant increases in progression-free survival, resulting in substantial predicted LYs and QALYs gained, while being cost effective in the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with HRD in the US.

Cost comparison of adverse event management among breast and ovarian cancer patients treated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors: analysis based on phase 3 clinical trials.

Background: The economic impact of adverse events (AEs) for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) in ovarian or breast cancer has not been widely evaluated. Objective: Compare PARPi-related AE management costs from a US payer perspective. Methods: The frequency of treatment-related grade 3-4 AEs was obtained from published clinical trials of PARPis for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (AOC), platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC), and metastatic breast cancer (MBC). AE management costs per patient (2020 USD) per treatment course were calculated by multiplying the AE unit costs by the frequency of AEs for each arm of each trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted according to the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for AE rates and unit costs, respectively. Scenarios were also performed to explore the uncertainty of outcomes. Results: Total AE management costs in AOC were: $3,904, olaparib; $5,595, olaparib plus bevacizumab; and $12,215, niraparib. In PSROC, total costs were: $3,894, olaparib; $6,001, rucaparib; and $11,492, niraparib, and in MBC: $3,574, olaparib; and $9,489, talazoparib. Hematological toxicities were the key drivers of AE management costs for PARPis. Conclusions: The main AEs among PARPis were hematological. Olaparib was associated with lower AE costs compared to other PARPis.

Patterns of use and outcomes of adjuvant bevacizumab therapy prior to regulatory approval in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: We used real-world claims data to assess the utility of the relatively novel therapeutic bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer in the United States after release of clinical data but prior to FDA approval. METHODS: We used the IQVIA Pharmetrics Plus commercial claims database to identify women with a new diagnosis of ovarian cancer who underwent primary surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery from 2006 to 2018. We calculated the rate of use of bevacizumab, and the relative frequency of hospital and emergency department (ED) admissions. Treatment-related toxicities, and time to second line chemotherapy were calculated. RESULTS: Among 8923 women who met study parameters, 533 (6.0%) received bevacizumab. The rate of use increased over time from 1.5% in 2006 to 7.0% in 2017 (P < 0.001), with a peak of 8.6% in 2011. The use was lowest in those ≥ 70 years old (2.8%), and in the West (4.5%), and was unaffected by number of comorbidities. Over one third (35.1%) received bevacizumab for less than 3 months, and 15.9% remained on it for greater than 13 months. Bevacizumab use was not associated with hospitalization or ED admission. Toxicities included hypertension (15.0%), kidney damage (6.8%), bleeding (3.8%), venous thrombo-embolism (2.3%) and fistula (1.1%). Time from initiation of first line chemotherapy to initiation of second line therapy was 19.9 months without bevacizumab and 22.6 months with bevacizumab use. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world patterns of upfront bevacizumab use prior to FDA approval in 2018 differed significantly from trial data.

Patients' and oncologists' preferences for second-line maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Aim: To understand the preferences of US patients and oncologists for PARP inhibitors as second-line maintenance (2LM) for epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted to assess the preferences of treatment attributes. Results: The most valued attributes were risk of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; patients, n = 204) and progression-free survival (PFS; oncologists, n = 151). To accept a 37% increased risk of grade 3/4 AEs, PFS would need to increase by 27.9 months (patients) and 6.3 months (oncologists). The least valued attributes were dosing form/frequency (patients) and grade 3/4 anemia risk (oncologists). Conclusion: Patients' and oncologists' willingness to make benefit-risk trade-offs in the 2LM setting suggests that the PFS gains observed in selected studies of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA-mutated disease are worth the toxicity risk.

Plain language summary Maintenance therapy is a treatment option intended to keep ovarian cancer from coming back or getting worse for as long as possible after responding to chemotherapy. PARP inhibitors are a new type of maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. This study aimed to understand the patients' and physicians' preferences for the benefits and risks associated with different PARP inhibitors used as maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer. Participants were asked to compare various treatment options based on their different safety profiles, effectiveness and form of medication (e.g., three capsules by mouth once a day versus two tablets by mouth twice a day), and then choose the treatment they most preferred. Through this exercise, the treatment features that mattered most to patients and physicians were identified. The most important treatment feature for patients was decreasing the chance of experiencing a serious side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization. In contrast, physicians valued lengthening the time that a cancer remains stable and does not worsen. To accept a 37% higher chance of experiencing a side effect that requires medical intervention or hospitalization, patients expect their cancer to remain stable and not worsen for an additional 28 months. This was a large difference from the 6 months that the physicians would consider as acceptable. The least important treatment features for patients are the amount of pills required per dose, the form of the given medication (e.g., tablet vs capsule) and the schedule of taking the treatment. On the other hand, physicians were least concerned about lowering the risk of experiencing low blood counts that, requiring medical intervention.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in the first-line maintenance setting vs. surveillance in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model over a 50-year lifetime horizon was developed. Piecewise models were applied to data from the phase III trial SOLO1 to extrapolate survival outcomes. Health state utilities and adverse event disutilities were obtained from literature and SOLO1. Treatment costs, adverse event costs, and medical costs associated with health states were obtained from publicly available databases, SOLO1, and real-world data. Time on treatment was estimated using the data from SOLO1. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) gained were estimated. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, olaparib was associated with an additional 3.63 LYs and 2.93 QALYs, and an incremental total cost of $152,545 vs. surveillance. Incremental cost per LY gained and per QALY gained for olaparib were $42,032 and $51,986, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below $100,000 across a range of inputs and scenarios. In the PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost-effective at a $100,000 per QALY threshold was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surveillance, olaparib increases both the LYs and QALYs of women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation. Olaparib offers a cost-effective maintenance option for these women from a US third-party payer perspective.

A Critical Appraisal and Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women in the US. With poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors having shown promising results in ongoing trials, there is interest in better understanding their economic value. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to review and evaluate the quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and provide recommendations for CEAs in this setting. METHODS: A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in June 2019 to identify CEAs of PARP inhibitors in treating advanced ovarian cancer from peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Key information from the identified publications were extracted and reviewed. The quality of full-text studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Recommendations for future CEAs were developed based on the findings from the literature review. RESULTS: Eighteen CEAs (five in full texts) met the inclusion criteria. Most adopted a US healthcare or societal perspective. The majority of the studies did not clearly display the economic model structure. No studies reported the validation of model projections based on internal or external data. Surrogate outcomes such as incremental costs per progression-free life-year gained were the most common outcomes reported. The majority of studies drew their conclusions based on surrogate outcomes, even with no theoretical or empirical threshold for cost effectiveness. All five full-text studies included some type of sensitivity or scenario analyses. The key drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were treatment duration, effects, and costs, health utility, and prevalence of BRCA mutations. CONCLUSION: In the existing CEAs for PARP inhibitors, there were uncertainties and challenges leading to variation in quality. We provided recommendations to improve consistency and quality of CEAs in this setting, which will help to better understand the value of PARP inhibitors, improve decision making, and reduce potential misallocation of resources.

Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma treated with brentuximab vedotin.

Data are limited on the real-world utilization and costs of brentuximab vedotin (BV) among patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (rrHL) in the United States. A total of 219 BV patients identified from the Truven MarketScan® databases were followed up for a median of 2.9 years before and 1.0 year after initiation of BV. Of these patients, 109 (50.6%) received systemic therapy after BV (post-BV ST). Median duration of treatment was short for BV (2.1 months) and post-BV ST treatment (1.3 months); time to next treatment was 6.2 and 9.1 months, respectively. Average total US dollar 2014 costs/person for BV and post-BV ST line of therapy were $167,152 and $132,115, respectively; mean per-patient-per-month costs for BV and post-BV ST were $30,434 and $29,138, respectively. Findings underscore the unmet medical need and substantial economic burden in BV-treated patients with rrHL.

Concurrent pemetrexed and radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of completed and ongoing studies.

Current standard for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is combined concurrent therapy with a platinum-based regimen. Preclinical synergistic activity of pemetrexed with radiation therapy (RT) and favorable toxicity profile has led to clinical trials evaluating pemetrexed in chemoradiation regimens. This literature search of concurrent pemetrexed and RT treatment of patients with stage III NSCLC included MEDLINE database, meeting abstracts, and the clinical trial registry database. Nineteen unique studies were represented across all databases including 11 phase I studies and eight phase II studies. Of the six phase II trials with mature data available, median overall survival ranged from 18.7 to 34 months. Esophagitis and pneumonitis occurred in 0-16% and 0-23% of patients, respectively. Of the ongoing trials, there is one phase III and four phase II trials with pemetrexed in locally advanced NSCLC. Pemetrexed can be administered safely at full systemic doses with either cisplatin or carboplatin concomitantly with radical doses of thoracic radiation therapy. While results from the ongoing phase III PROCLAIM trial are needed to address definitively the efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin plus RT in stage III NSCLC, available results from phase II trials suggest that this regimen has promising activity with an acceptable toxicity profile.

Economic burden associated with adverse events in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: There are currently many approved agents for the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM), the most aggressive form of skin cancer. Treatments may include systemic therapies such as ipilimumab, dacarbazine, temozolomide, high-dose interleukin 2, interferon α, dacarbazine- or temozolomide-based combination chemotherapy/biochemotherapy, paclitaxel, paclitaxel/cisplatin, and paclitaxel/carboplatin, as well as the targeted therapies vemurafenib, dabrafenib, and trametinib for patients with BRAF V600 mutation. However, all treatment options are associated with different adverse events (AEs) and, in some instances, considerable toxicity. The occurrence of such treatment-related AEs can lead to higher health care resource utilization and increasing treatment and patient management costs. An understanding of the economic burden of these AEs will therefore enable better management of health care expenditures, not just for existing therapies, but also for new and novel treatments in development. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental health care costs of specific AEs among patients with MM treated with paclitaxel, vemurafenib, ipilimumab, dacarbazine, temozolomide, high-dose interleukin 2, or interferon α, along with AEs known to be associated with dabrafenib and trametinib. METHODS: This cohort study employed a retrospective administrative claims-based analysis of MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental databases from July 1, 2004, to April 30, 2012. Patients included those aged ≥ 18 years who had diagnosed melanoma (ICD-9-CM code 172.xx)with ≥ 1 diagnosis of metastasis and ≥ 1 claim for any of the 7 study treatments. Health care encounters for AEs of interest were based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis/procedure codes. Incremental cost per AE was determined by comparing the 30-day expenditures in patients with the event to patients without the event based on a shadow event date. Multivariate generalized linear models (GLMs) with a log-link function and gamma distribution were utilized to control for baseline differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,621 patients with MM were included. Mean age was 56.0 years (SD ± 13.0); 64% were male; and 24% had a diagnosis of primary or secondary brain cancer at the time of MM diagnosis. GLM-based estimate of 30-day incremental costs by AE category were metabolic, $9,135 (95% CI = $6,404-$12,392); hematologic/lymphatic, $8,450 (95% CI = $6,528-$10,633); cardiovascular, $6,476 (95% CI = $4,667-$8,541); gastrointestinal, $6,338 (95% CI = $4,740-$8,122); skin/subcutaneous, -$900 (95% CI = -$1,899-$237); central nervous system/psychiatric, $5,903 (95% CI = $3,842-$8,313); and pain, $5,078 (95% CI = $3,392-$7,012). CONCLUSIONS: Incremental costs associated with many MM treatment-related AEs are substantial. New approaches to prevent and/or better manage these events may reduce overall health care costs.

Comparison of pemetrexed plus cisplatin with other first-line doublets in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a combined analysis of three phase 3 trials.

INTRODUCTION: In a first-line study of advanced NSCLC, pemetrexed-cisplatin was more effective among patients with adenocarcinoma and large-cell carcinoma compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin (median survival of 11.8 versus 10.4 months, P=.005), while survival with pemetrexed-cisplatin was shorter than with gemcitabine-cisplatin in patients with squamous cell carcinoma. The comparability of pemetrexed-cisplatin to other commonly used regimens within histology subgroups needs to be explored. METHODS: This retrospective analysis combined the patient-level data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of different third generation platinum- and non-platinum based doublets. Unadjusted median survival times and Cox covariate-adjusted treatment hazard ratio (HR) estimates were calculated. Overall results and subgroups by histological type were reported. RESULTS: This combined analysis consisted of 3467 patients. In the overall analysis, adjusted HRs favored pemetrexed (HR <1.0) to each of the other 5 regimens, though none of these HRs were statistically significant. Among patients with non-squamous histology, pemetrexed-cisplatin produced favorable HRs to each of the other regimens, achieving statistical significance when compared with vinorelbine-cisplatin (HR=0.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.50, 0.91) and gemcitabine-cisplatin (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97). Among patients with squamous histology, 4 of the 5 comparison regimens produced favorable HRs (HR >1.0) when compared with pemetrexed-cisplatin, with only the comparison with gemcitabine-cisplatin achieving statistical significance (HR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.51). CONCLUSION: In the absence of randomized clinical trial data comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin to commonly used doublets in advanced NSCLC other than gemcitabine-cisplatin, this combined analysis of multiple trials provides estimates for such comparisons.