Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of all approved granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), including filgrastim and pegfilgrastim, as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk regimens (in those with additional patient risk factors). Previous studies have examined G-CSF cost-effectiveness by cancer type in patients with a high baseline risk of FN. This study evaluated patients with breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving therapy who were at intermediate risk for FN and compared primary prophylaxis (PP) and secondary prophylaxis (SP) using biosimilar filgrastim or biosimilar pegfilgrastim in Austria, France, and Germany. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree-based model was constructed to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL receiving therapy over a lifetime horizon. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that using biosimilar filgrastim as PP compared to SP resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below the most commonly accepted WTP threshold of €30,000. Across all three countries, PP in NSCLC had the lowest cost per QALY, and in France, PP was both cheaper and more effective than SP. Similar results were found using biosimilar pegfilgrastim, with ICERs generally higher than those for filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilar filgrastim and pegfilgrastim as primary prophylaxis are cost-effective approaches to avoid FN events in patients with BC, NSCLC, or NHL at intermediate risk for FN in Austria, France, and Germany.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF biosimilars in patients at intermediate/high risk of febrile neutropenia.

Background: Real-world data suggests superiority of pegfilgrastim (PEG) over filgrastim (FIL) in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN), probably attributable to underdosed FIL in practice. We used real-world data to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis with PEG versus FIL in cancer patients at intermediate-to-high risk of FN from a US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with lifetime horizon. Results: For the high-risk group, PEG (vs FIL) biosimilars resulted in 0.43 FN events prevented (FNp), 0.27 quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYg) and a cost saving of USD$5703. For the intermediate-risk group, PEG biosimilar led to 0.18 FNp and 0.12 QALYg, at USD$9674/FNp and USD$14,502/QALYg. Conclusion: PEG biosimilars may provide opportunities to optimize FN management in patients with intermediate-to-high FN risk.

Our results have demonstrated that, by taking the real-world dosing and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim into account, pegfilgrastim biosimilars have the potential to financially optimize neutropenia management in cancer patients by reducing febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence and FN-related healthcare resource utilization, and to potentially improve health outcomes. Extending primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim biosimilars from cancer patients with high-to-intermediate risk of FN resulted in clinical benefits, at acceptable incremental costs. Given the accelerated availability of pegfilgrastim biosimilars, it is important to instigate a rethink of FN management in cancer patients and implement guidelines that maximize the benefits of pegfilgrastim both clinically and economically.

Biosimilar Pegfilgrastim: Improving Access and Optimising Practice to Supportive Care that Enables Cure.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of chemotherapy, which can cause significant morbidity and mortality, result in dose delays and reductions and, ultimately, reduce cancer survival. Over the past decade, the availability of biosimilar filgrastim (short-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) has transformed patient access, with clear evidence of clinical benefit at preventing FN at reduced costs. In 2019, seven biosimilar pegfilgrastims (long-acting G-CSFs) were licensed, creating optimal market conditions and choice for prescribers. FN affects up to 117 per 1000 cancer patients, with mortality rates in the range of 2-21%. By reducing FN incidence and improving chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI), G-CSF has been associated with a 3.2% absolute survival benefit. Guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis and that filgrastim be administered for 10-14 days, while pegfilgrastim is administered once per cycle. When taken according to the guidelines, pegfilgrastim and filgrastim are equally effective. However, in routine clinical practice, filgrastim is often under-dosed (< 7 days) and has been shown to be inferior to pegfilgrastim at reducing FN incidence, hospitalisations and maintaining RDI. Once-per-cycle administration with pegfilgrastim might also aid patient adherence. The introduction of biosimilar pegfilgrastim should instigate a rethink of neutropenia management. Biosimilar pegfilgrastim offers countries using biosimilar filgrastim opportunities to improve adherence and thus cancer survival, whilst offering economic benefits for countries using reference pegfilgrastim. These benefits can be realised in full if biosimilar pegfilgrastim becomes part of routine clinical practice supported by drug and therapeutic committees implementing guidelines with multidisciplinary support in the hospital.

The evolution of value with filgrastim in oncology.

The recombinant G-CSF filgrastim was first approved in 1991, and its value has been evolving ever since. Initial health technology assessments suggested low value due to high drug cost and no evidence for significant gain in overall survival. However, more recent meta-analyses of placebo-controlled randomized trial data show falling costs due to biosimilar competition and absolute overall survival gains of 3.2% (95% CI: 2.1-4.2%) from filgrastim support of cytotoxic chemotherapy. The launch of biosimilar alternatives merits a re-evaluation of decisions by health technology assessments and explains the first inclusion of filgrastim in the WHO Essential Drug List for cancer >20 years after its original approval in 1991, thus demonstrating the power of biosimilar medicines in transforming healthcare.

Correction to: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short-versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia.

The article "Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short-versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia", written by Paul Cornes, Pere Gascon, Stephen Chan, Khalid Hameed, Catherine R. Mitchell, Polly Field, Mark Latymer, Luiz H. Arantes Jr was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on October 8, 2018 without open access.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- versus Long-Acting Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factors for Reduction of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia.

INTRODUCTION: Short- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment. METHODS: Medline®/Medline in-process, Embase®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage. FUNDING: Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.

The changing landscape of biosimilars in rheumatology.

Biosimilars remain a hot topic in rheumatology, and some physicians are cautious about their application in the real world. With many products coming to market and a wealth of guidelines and recommendations concerning their use, there is a need to understand the changing landscape and the real clinical and health-economic potential offered by these agents. Notably, rheumatologists will be at the forefront of the use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies/soluble receptors. Biosimilars offer cost savings and health gains for our patients and will play an important role in treating rheumatic diseases. We hope that these lower costs will compensate for inequities in access to therapy based on economic differences across countries. Since approved biosimilars have already demonstrated highly similar efficacy, it will be most important to establish pharmacovigilance databases across countries that are adequate to monitor long-term safety after marketing approval.

Chemotherapy for metastatic and recurrent cervical cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women up to 65 years of age and is the most frequent cause of death from gynaecological cancers worldwide. A woman's risk of developing cervical cancer by 65 years of age ranges from 0.69% in developed countries to 1.38% in developing countries. Although screening by Pap smear should mean early detection at a curable stage for most women, many still present with advanced or metastatic disease with a worse prognosis. The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to radiotherapy has improved outcome compared to radiotherapy alone; however, 30% to 50% fail to respond to treatment or develop recurrent disease. There are no standard treatment options for these patients, although platinum-based chemotherapy is frequently used and trials are on-going. OBJECTIVES: To compare different types and combinations of cytotoxic chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2012). The reference lists from these and those of review articles were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving chemotherapy for metastatic/recurrent cervical cancer. Trials involving radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, intra-arterial chemotherapy, biological agents or immunomodulators were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion and data extraction and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: There were no data comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy. Cisplatin-based regimens are the most widely used and therefore we have concentrated on these trials. In terms of response rates some non-platinum regimens are equivalent but toxicity is higher. The most common cisplatin regimen was 50 mg/m(2) day 1 q21days. Higher doses had similar survivals. There was no direct comparison between single-agent cisplatin and carboplatin. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not adequately reported and quality of life (QoL) outcomes were incompletely documented. Combination regimens were more toxic than single agents, but in the limited reported data this did not appear to adversely affect QoL.No significant difference in response rate by site of recurrence was found, although there was a trend towards improved response when the main site of disease was beyond the previously irradiated pelvis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combination cisplatin-based chemotherapy could be a viable option for patients of good performance status with recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer, but further trials that report adequate survival and QoL data are sought. Response rates and improvements in survival are low. Cisplatin-based combinations have significant toxicity. Outcomes are poor and novel cytotoxic/biological agents and optimal scheduling need further investigation. Future trials need to stratify for and perform planned subgroup analysis with respect to previous treatment and site of recurrence.

Comparative cost efficiency across the European G5 countries of originators and a biosimilar erythropoiesis-stimulating agent to manage chemotherapy-induced anemia in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative cost efficiency across the European Union G5 countries of the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin α (originator [Eprex®] and biosimilar [Binocrit®]; once weekly), epoetin ß (NeoRecormon®; once weekly), and darbepoetin α (Aranesp®; once weekly or once every 3 weeks) under different scenarios of fixed and weight-based dosing in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia. METHODS: Direct costs of ESA treatment were calculated for one patient with cancer undergoing chemotherapy (six cycles at 3-week intervals) with ESA initiated at week 4 and continued for 15 weeks. Five scenarios were developed under fixed and weight-based dosing: continuous standard dose for 15 weeks; sustained dose escalation to 1.5× or double the standard dose at week 7, continued for 12 weeks; and discontinued dose escalation to 1.5× or double the standard dose at week 7 for a 3-week period, then 9 weeks of standard dose. RESULTS: Under fixed dosing, the average cost of biosimilar epoetin α treatment across scenarios was €4643 (30,000 IU) or €6178 (40,000 IU). Corresponding estimates were €7168 for originator epoetin α, €7389 for epoetin ß, €8299 for darbepoetin α once weekly, and €9221 for darbepoetin α once every 3 weeks. Under weight-based dosing, the average cost of biosimilar epoetin α treatment across scenarios was €4726. Corresponding estimates were €5484 for originator epoetin α, €5652 for epoetin ß, and €8465 for both darbepoetin α once weekly and once every three weeks. CONCLUSION: Managing chemotherapy-induced anemia with biosimilar epoetin α is consistently cost efficient over treatment with originator epoetin α, epoetin ß, and darbepoetin α under both fixed and weight-based dosing scenarios.

The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine.

The main rationale for using biosimilar drugs is for cost saving. The market development for biosimilar drugs will therefore depend on the degree to which cost saving measures are required by nations, medical insurers and individuals and the absolute savings that could be gained by switching from original drugs. This paper is designed to discover the degree to which financial constraints will drive future health spending and to discover if legal or safety issues could impact on any trend. A structured literature search was performed for papers and documents to 27 August 2011. Where multiple sources of data were available on a topic, data from papers and reports by multinational or national bodies were used in preference to data from regions or individual hospitals. Almost all health systems face current significant cost pressures. The twin driver of increasing cancer prevalence as populations age and cancer medicine costs rising faster than inflation places oncology as the most significant single cost problem. For some countries, this is predicted to make medicine unaffordable within a decade. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a cost-control measure. Biosimilar introduction into the EU has already forced prices down, both the price of biosimilar drugs and competitive price reductions in originator drugs. Compound annual growth rates of use have been predicted at 65.8% per year. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a major cost-control measure. Only legal blocks and safety concerns are likely to act against this trend. For centralised healthcare systems, and those with a strong tradition of generic medicine use, biosimilar use will clearly rise with predictions of more than 80% of prescriptions of some biologic drugs within 1 year of market entry in the USA. Delaying the implementation of such programmes however risks a real crisis in healthcare delivery for many countries and hospitals that few can now afford.

Comparative cost-efficiency across the European G5 countries of various regimens of filgrastim, biosimilar filgrastim, and pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

OBJECTIVES: This cost-efficiency analysis of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) filgrastim (originator Neupogen® and biosimilar Zarzio®) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta®) examined against a time horizon of 1-14 days of treatment and across the European Union G5 countries (a) when, cost-wise, using Neulasta® 6 mg versus Neupogen® or Zarzio® 300 µg may be cost-saving in reducing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia; and (b) if cost-wise, treatment with Zarzio® 300 µg yields a savings advantage over Neupogen® 300 µg. METHODS: Cost-efficiency analysis of the direct costs a buyer or payer would incur when purchasing or covering any of these agents for managing one patient during one cycle of chemotherapy under regimens of 1-14 days of standard filgrastim using the population-weighted average unit dose cost of each agent per their public pack cost across the European G5 countries. RESULTS: The cost of Neupogen® treatment ranged from €128.16 (1 day) to €1794.30 (14 days), compared to €95.46 and €1336.46 for Zarzio®, thus yielding potential cost savings from €32.70 to €457.84 for the latter. Neulasta® turns cost-saving at day 12 of Neupogen® treatment. At no point over a 14-day treatment period did Neulasta® yield a savings advantage over Zarzio®. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis or treatment of febrile neutropenia with Zarzio® is cost-efficient under all possible treatment scenarios relative to Neupogen® and to Neulasta®. In the absence of convincing evidence that pegfilgrastim is pharmacotherapeutically superior to standard filgrastim, there is no cost-efficiency rationale to treat with Neulasta® over Zarzio®, though there may be a small window of approximately 3 days where Neulasta® is cost-efficient over Neupogen®. Regardless, our analysis shows Zarzio® to be the most cost-efficient approach to reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy-treated patients.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for endometrial cancer after hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial adenocarcinoma (womb cancer) is a malignant growth of the lining (endometrium) of the womb (uterus). It is distinct from sarcomas (tumours of the uterine muscle). Survival depends the risk of microscopic metastases after surgery. Adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy improves survival from some other adenocarcinomas, and there is evidence that endometrial cancer is sensitive to cytotoxic therapy. This systematic review examines the effect of chemotherapy on survival after hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy of adjuvant (postoperative) chemotherapy for endometrial cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to August 2010, registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with any other adjuvant treatment or no other treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a random-effects meta-analysis to assess hazard ratios (HR) for overall and progression-free survival and risk ratios (RR) to compare death rates and site of initial relapse. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs compared no additional treatment with additional chemotherapy after hysterectomy and radiotherapy. Four trials compared platinum based combination chemotherapy directly with radiotherapy. Indiscriminate pooling of survival data from 2197 women shows a significant overall survival advantage from adjuvant chemotherapy (RR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.79 to 0.99)). Sensitivity analysis focused on trials of modern platinum based chemotherapy regimens and found the relative risk of death to be 0.85 ((0.76 to 0.96); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) = 25; absolute risk reduction = 4% (1% to 8%)). The HR for overall survival is 0.74 (0.64 to 0.89), significantly favouring the addition of postoperative platinum based chemotherapy. The HR for progression-free survival is 0.75 (0.64 to 0.89). This means that chemotherapy reduces the risk of being dead at any censorship by a quarter. Chemotherapy reduces the risk of developing the first recurrence outside the pelvis (RR = 0.79 (0.68 to 0.92), 5% absolute risk reduction; NNT = 20). The analysis of pelvic recurrence rates is underpowered but the trend suggests that chemotherapy may be less effective than radiotherapy in a direct comparison (RR = 1.28 (0.97 to 1.68)) but it may have added value when used with radiotherapy (RR = 0.48 (0.20 to 1.18)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative platinum based chemotherapy is associated with a small benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival irrespective of radiotherapy treatment. It reduces the risk of developing a metastasis, could be an alternative to radiotherapy and has added value when used with radiotherapy.

Phase II study of oral vinorelbine in combination with carboplatin followed by consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine as single-agent in unresectable localized or metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of oral vinorelbine given weekly in combination with carboplatin (CBDCA) AUC 5 once every 3 weeks for four cycles in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), followed by consolidation therapy with single-agent oral vinorelbine in non-progressive patients. METHODS: Chemonaive advanced NSCLC patients received four cycles of combination therapy with CBDCA AUC 5 day 1 and oral vinorelbine, 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 (cycle 1), dose increased to 80 mg/m2 (cycles 2-4) in absence of grades 3-4 neutropenia (NCI-CTCv2). Consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine was continued (cycle 5) at same dosage; if dose was decreased during combination therapy, it was given at 60 mg/m2, then increased at 80 mg/m2 (cycle 6) in absence of grades 3-4 neutropenia until PD, toxicity or patient's refusal. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were registered and 56 patients were treated (ITT population), median age was 61 years (37-71). Objective response evaluated by RECIST was 17.9% (95% confidence interval, CI [8.9-30.4]) and disease control (CR, PR, NC) 73.2% (95% CI [59.7-84.2]), median progression-free survival 4.3 months (95% CI [3.1-5.1]) with median overall survival 9.7 months (95% CI [7.7-11.9]) and 1-year survival 37.1% (95% CI [24.4, 49.9]). Grades 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 67.9% of patients during combination and 20% during consolidation; febrile neutropenia occurred in 4 patients (7.1%) during combination therapy. Non-hematological toxicities occurred primarily during combination (grade 3 nausea and grade 3 vomiting in 7.1% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of oral vinorelbine given weekly in 3-week cycles in combination with carboplatin followed by consolidation therapy with oral vinorelbine as a single-agent was able to achieve efficacy results in line with other doublets including carboplatin in terms of response as well as survival. This regimen reported a good profile of tolerability in the treatment of advanced NSCLC, allowing that this combination can be easily proposed for the palliative care of NSCLC patients where the advantages of carboplatin over cisplatin are still appreciated.

Brachytherapy in endometrial cancer: quantification of air gaps around a vaginal cylinder.

PURPOSE: Vaginal vault brachytherapy, prescribed to 0.5 cm, is used in endometrial cancer postoperatively to reduce the risk of vault recurrence. However, it is unknown if the vaginal mucosa is closely opposed to the vaginal cylinder, or if air gaps lift the mucosa from the cylinder. The aim of this study was to quantify the extent, magnitude, and effect on dose of any air gaps around the vaginal cylinder using CT-scan images. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five patients treated between January and December 2005 were included in the study. The brachytherapy was prescribed to 0.5 cm with a reference volume length (RVL) of 4 cm. Pelvic CT scans taken before the first treatment with cylinder in situ were examined for presence of air gaps around the cylinder within the RVL. RESULTS: The median number of air gaps was 1 (range, 0-5) with a mean average area of 0.20 cm2 (range, 0.02-1.65). This resulted in an average of 0.86% (range, 0-6.3) of the vaginal surface within the RVL being raised from the surface of the cylinder. Over the air gaps, the dose the mucosa received at 0.5 cm was on average 86.7% (range, 54.7-97.3) of that which it would have received if there was no air gap. Overall, the dose at 0.5 cm of the whole vaginal mucosa within the RVL was 99.6% (range, 100-96.0) of that prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: Most postoperative patients with endometrial cancer do not have any clinically significant air gaps around the vaginal cylinder used to administer brachytherapy to the vaginal vault.

Health state utility scores for cancer-related anemia through societal and patient valuations.

OBJECTIVES: Fatigue is recognized as the most serious complication of chemotherapy for the majority of patients. This study aims to determine preferences and utility values for health state descriptions of anemia associated with cancer treatment. METHODS: FACT-An clinical trial data were summarized to define health states associated with hemoglobin levels of 7.0-8.0, 8.0-9.0, 9.0-10.0, 10.0-10.5, 10.5-11.0, 11.0-12.0, and 12.0+ g/dL. Health state descriptions were reviewed by clinicians and two quality-of-life experts. Eighty-five members of the general public were asked to rate the health states using a visual analogue scale and standard gamble (SG). Twenty-six oncology patients were interviewed using the time trade-off (TTO). RESULTS: The mean societal SG derived utility values showed a significant linear change from 0.583 +/- 0.067 (7-8 g/dL hemoglobin [Hb]) to 0.708 +/- 0.057 (12+ g/dL Hb). The patient TTO data ranged from 0.297 +/- 0.127 (7-8 g/dL Hb) to 0.611 +/- 0.092 (12+ g/dL Hb). CONCLUSIONS: The health state utility scores from both groups show a decrement in line with worsening anemia. Furthermore, patients who have experienced cancer-related fatigue rate the more severe levels of anemia much lower than the general public.

Erythropoietic therapy for the treatment of anemia in patients with cancer: a valuable clinical and economic option.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations must evaluate the cost effectiveness of the alternative therapies that are available to treat anemia and improve quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, that is, erythropoietic protein therapy and blood transfusion. METHODS: Pharmacoeconomic studies that evaluated the cost of not treating anemia or treating with transfusion or erythropoietic protein therapy were reviewed and compared. Studies of individual erythropoietic proteins (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alfa) were also assessed. As no prospective trials have compared the erythropoietic proteins, retrospective studies and the results of separate trials were analyzed. The database searched for this review was PubMed (open date to August 2006). Recent conference abstracts were also searched (2003-July 2006). RESULTS: There is a high cost associated with anemia in cancer patients. Treatment of anemia is likely to lead to increased hemoglobin (Hb) levels and improved QoL as principal outcomes. Therefore, in assessing erythropoietic protein versus transfusion, it is more appropriate to use Hb or QoL as endpoint rather than quality adjusted life year. Studies with the former approach showed that erythropoietic protein therapy is more cost effective than transfusion. Also, its cost effectiveness should be improved with the use of evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and more tailored utilization. Increasing evidence suggests there might be differences among the erythropoietic proteins in terms of response rate, speed of response, and need for dose escalation. CONCLUSION: Significant costs are incurred when anemia in cancer is not treated. Erythropoietic protein therapy is more cost effective than blood transfusion for the treatment of cancer-related anemia. Transfusion should be reserved for patients with poor responses to erythropoietic protein or for the emergency setting, when rapid improvement in Hb is required.

Preclinical studies of erythropoietin receptor expression in tumour cells: impact on clinical use of erythropoietic proteins to correct cancer-related anaemia.

In vitro and animal model studies have shown erythropoietin receptor (Epo-R) mRNA and/or protein may be present in a range of human tumours and cancer cell lines, and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been reported to have tumour cell growth-modulating effects. Following a review of the literature, we conclude that considerations must be made when interpreting data from the preclinical studies. First, supraphysiological doses of ESAs were usually used. Second, there are no well validated, commercially available antibodies for identifying the presence and functionality of Epo-R at the protein level, either intracellularly or on the cell surface. Data from previous studies that used antibodies only for Epo-R detection must therefore be interpreted with caution. Together with diverging results in the literature, these methodological limitations indicate that findings from preclinical studies must not be over-translated in terms of their clinical relevance to patients with cancer.