Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (P/L) versus standard-of-care carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/T) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: We designed a Markov model to simulate treatment outcomes for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer patients whose tumors are either microsatellite stable (MSS) or have high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). We adopted a healthcare sector perspective for the analysis. Model inputs for costs, health utility, and clinical estimates were obtained from the literature including data from GOG0209 and KEYNOTE-146. Primary outcomes included costs of care, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The time-horizon was three years and the discount rate was 3% annually. RESULTS: In a MSS cohort, compared to C/T, first-line treatment with P/L increased treatment costs by $212,670 and decreased QALYs by 0.28 per patient. In a MSI-high cohort, compared to C/T, P/L increased costs by $313,487 and increased QALYs by 0.11 per patient, representing an ICER of $2,849,882 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found that the price of the new drugs was the most important determinant of the ICER and that the price of the new drugs would need to decrease by 85% to $2817 per cycle to reach a $150,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: In the MSS model, we found that first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer with P/L increased costs and worsened outcomes compared to C/T. In the MSI-high model, P/L improved survival and QALYs compared to C/T but was not cost-effective at the current cost of the drugs.

Trastuzumab with carboplatin/paclitaxel for treatment of advanced stage and recurrent uterine papillary serous carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) is a variant of endometrial cancer that is aggressive and associated with poor outcomes. We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of carboplatin/paclitaxel alone versus carboplatin/paclitaxel with trastuzumab among patients with Her2/neu-positive advanced or recurrent UPSC. METHODS: We designed a Markov model in TreeAge Pro 2019 software to simulate management of a theoretical cohort of 4000 patients with Her2/neu-positive advanced or recurrent uterine papillary serous carcinoma (UPSC) followed for four years. In the carboplatin/paclitaxel with trastuzumab strategy, we included the cost of testing for Her2/neu status. We obtained all model inputs from the literature and a societal perspective was assumed. Outcomes included progression-free survival, progression, UPSC-specific mortality, cost, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The intervention was considered cost effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In our theoretical cohort of 4000 women, treatment with the addition of trastuzumab resulted in 637 fewer deaths and 627 fewer cases of progression compared with treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel alone. Treatment with trastuzumab was associated with an additional cost of $144,335,895, but was associated with an increase of 2065 QALYs. The ICER was $69,903 per QALY, which was below our willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that this treatment strategy was cost-effective until the cost of 6 months of treatment surpassed $38,505 (baseline input: $27,562). CONCLUSION: We found that the addition of trastuzumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel was a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with advanced/recurrent Her2/neu-positive UPSC.

Social and Clinical Correlates of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Medicare Beneficiaries With Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer From 2004-2015.

OBJECTIVE: To assess social and clinical correlates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of SEER-Medicare (2004-2015) patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer treated by radical cystectomy were stratified into 3-groups: standard of care NAC (cisplatin-based combination), non-standard of care NAC, and upfront cystectomy. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess social, demographic and clinical correlates of each treatment category. Survival analyses were performed to compare propensity matched treatment groups. RESULTS: In total, 6214 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 21 [IQR 7-54] months. NAC utilization increased from 10.7% to 39.1%, between 2004 and 2015, largely due to increased use of standard of care regimens. The most commonly used nonstandard regimen was gemcitabine/carboplatin (50.2%). Older age, Hispanic and Black race, lower socioeconomic status, and contraindications to cisplatin were associated with increased odds of receiving nonstandard of care NAC compared to standard of care. Standard of care NAC was associated with improved overall survival HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76, 0.94) and HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63, 0.89) compared to both upfront cystectomy and nonstandard of care NAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: NAC utilization has increased to nearly 40%; however, the use of non-standard of care NAC regimen have persisted (~8%). Cisplatin-ineligibility, older age, race/ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic status were correlated with nonstandard of care NAC, which provided no clinical benefit at the risk of potential harm. In accordance with current clinical guidelines, cisplatin-ineligible patients should be considered for timely upfront cystectomy or novel clinical trials.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Addition of Bevacizumab to First-Line Chemotherapy With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Colombian health system. METHODS: A Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel (BCP) compared with carboplatin + paclitaxel (CP) in the treatment of NSCLS during a 4-year period. The health outcome was the number of life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) obtained from the survival curves reported in a clinical study. Costs were estimated using national tariff and reported in US dollars at a date in 2019. Costs and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on important parameters with a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The costs of BCP and CP were $30 341 and $11 735, respectively. The LYG for BCP and CP were 0.34 and 0.29, respectively. The QALY for BCP and CP were 0.27 and 0.23. The ICER of BCP versus CP was $ 465 150 QALY. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation showed that CP was cost-effective in 100% of the iterations compared with BCP. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to the scheme carboplatin + paclitaxel compared to carboplatin + paclitaxel for NSCLC is not cost-effective from the point of view of the Colombian health system.

Randomized Phase III Study of Continuation Maintenance Bevacizumab With or Without Pemetrexed in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: COMPASS (WJOG5610L).

PURPOSE: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been shown to benefit from maintenance therapy. COMPASS evaluated the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed as continuation maintenance therapy after carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab induction therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC without confirmed EGFR 19 deletion or L858R mutation received first-line therapy with carboplatin area under the curve 6, pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. Patients without disease progression during the induction therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 for maintenance therapy with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) after random assignment. RESULTS: Between September 2010 and September 2015, 907 patients received induction therapy. Of those, 599 were randomly assigned: 298 received pemetrexed plus bevacizumab, and 301 received bevacizumab. The median OS was 23.3 v 19.6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .069). In the wild-type EGFR subset, the OS HR was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99; 1-sided unstratified log-rank P = .020). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 v 4.0 months (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.79; 2-sided log-rank P < .001). The safety data were consistent with previous reports of treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: In terms of the primary end point of OS, no statistically significant benefit was observed; however, PFS in the total patient population and OS in patients with wild-type EGFR was prolonged with the addition of pemetrexed to bevacizumab maintenance therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as a Second-line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib used as a second-line treatment after failure of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. METHODS: From the perspective of China's health care system, a Markov model was used for estimating the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib and 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, including pemetrexed + platinum (PP), gemcitabine + platinum (GP), docetaxel + platinum (DP), and paclitaxel + platinum (TP). Two scenarios were considered, one in all confirmed patients with T790M-positive disease (scenario 1) and the other in all patients whose disease progressed after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, which consisted of patients with T790M-positive or T790M-negative NSCLC (scenario 2). Clinical data for transition probabilities and treatment effects were obtained from published clinical trials. Health care resource utilization and costs were derived from local administrative databases and published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. FINDINGS: In the base-case analysis, compared with the 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.671 to 0.846 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with incremental costs of 15,943 to 20,299 USD in scenario 1, and an additional 0.376 to 0.808 QALY with incremental costs of 9710 to 15,407 USD in scenario 2. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that osimertinib would be cost-effective were 57.7% in scenario 1 and 58.4% in scenario 2 if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 30,000 USD/QALY, and probabilities would be more than 75 % in both scenarios if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 50,000 USD/QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Osimertinib is likely to be cost-effective when used as a second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in China based on the latest reimbursement price of osimertinib through National Reimbursement Drug List negotiation.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Combination Therapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States.

Importance: Immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy has recently become the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The implications of these first-line treatments are considerable, given the potential population of patients eligible to receive them and their high cost. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed to assess atezolizumab combination vs bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel alone in the first line (base case 1). A secondary model was developed to assess these treatments along with pembrolizumab combination and platinum doublet chemotherapy (base case 2). Treatment strategies and other simulated conditions were based on those from the IMpower150 and KEYNOTE-189 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. One million patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer were simulated for each treatment group. This study was performed from February 2019 through May 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: In base case 1, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treating with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the first line was associated with a mean cost of $112 551 (95% CI, $112 450-$112 653) and a mean survival of 1.48 QALYs (95% CI, 1.47-1.48 QALYs) per patient. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel was associated with a mean cost of $244 166 (95% CI, $243 864-$244 468) and a mean survival of 2.13 QALYs (95% CI, 2.12-2.13 QALYs) per patient, for an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $201 676 per QALY (95% CI, $198 105-$205 355 per QALY). In base case 2, in which 1 million patients were simulated, pembrolizumab combination therapy was associated with a mean cost of $226 282 (95% CI, $226 007-$226 557) and a mean survival of 2.45 QALYs (95% CI, 2.44-2.46 QALYs) per patient. Pembrolizumab combination dominated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 698 per QALY (95% CI, $115 088-$118 342 per QALY) between pembrolizumab combination and bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel. Atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulated model economic analysis, atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel and provided suboptimal incremental benefit compared with cost vs pembrolizumab combination for first-line treatment. Although atezolizumab combination therapy provides clinical benefits, price reductions may be necessary for this treatment strategy to become cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab for Patients with Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Ineligible for Cisplatin-based Therapy.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for effective therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who cannot tolerate cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Cisplatin-ineligible patients experience a high frequency of adverse events from the most commonly used standard of care treatment, carboplatin plus gemcitabine, or alternative treatment with gemcitabine monotherapy. Pembrolizumab is a potent, highly selective humanised monoclonal antibody that releases checkpoint inhibition of the immune response system, and provides a new alternative for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for first-line treatment of urothelial carcinoma ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy in patients with strongly PD-L1-positive tumours in Sweden. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Parametric survival curves were fitted to overall survival, progression-free survival, and time on treatment data from KEYNOTE-052 to extrapolate clinical outcomes. A simulated treatment comparison and a network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of pembrolizumab versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy. EQ-5D data from KEYNOTE-052 were used to estimate utility, while resource use and cost inputs were estimated using Swedish regional pricing lists and clinician opinion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model reported costs, life years, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and results were tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We estimated that pembrolizumab would improve survival by 2.11 and 2.16 years and increase QALYs by 1.71 and 1.75 compared to carboplatin plus gemcitabine and gemcitabine monotherapy, respectively. Pembrolizumab was associated with a cost increase of €90520 versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and €95055 versus gemcitabine, with corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €53055/QALY and €54415/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €100000/QALY, pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment versus carboplatin plus gemcitabine and versus gemcitabine. PATIENT SUMMARY: This is the first analysis to show that pembrolizumab is a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Sweden.

Financial audit of wastage of anticancer drugs: Pilot study from a tertiary care center in India.

PURPOSE: Drug wastage is a major concern in oncology where costs of antineoplastic drugs are exorbitant, and the disposal of toxic drugs increases the chances of occupational hazards to healthcare and sanitary workers and environmental pollution at the site of disposal. The principal objective of this study was to ascertain the extent of drug wastage and calculate its financial costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective pilot study conducted to ascertain the quantity of drug wastage in a tertiary care hospital. This pilot study was conducted in day care and inpatient facilities in February 2016. The prescription of cytotoxic drugs, recommended dose, the quantity used, and remainder (waste) left were recorded from the nurses and pharmacy files of the hospital. Cost evaluation of the actual use and the waste was undertaken and an audit was conducted to understand in which anticancer drug the maximum wastage was generated. RESULTS: The results of this study indicated that 6.1% of the total amount of reconstituted drugs was wasted. The highest drug wastage was observed in trastuzumab (29.55%), followed by etoposide (20.4%), dacarbazine (17.14%), daunorubicin (16.67%), and carboplatin (11.29%). Cost analysis showed that the total cost of the drug issued during the study period was Rs. 1,294,975 and the cost of drug wastage amounted to Rs. 143,820 (11.1%). CONCLUSION: To the best of authors' knowledge, this is the first study from India and the results indicate that the financial impact of anticancer drug wastage was substantial. Attempts should be directed at minimizing the wastage and cost savings without risking patients' treatment regimen and administering effective dose schedule.

Comparing outcomes of concurrent chemotherapy regimens in patients 65 years old or older with locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of cisplatin (CDDP), carboplatin, and cetuximab (CTX) delivered concurrently with radiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma continues to be evaluated. METHODS: The linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify and compare patient and disease profiles, mortality, toxicity, and overall cost for patients with oropharynx cancer undergoing definitive concurrent chemoradiation with CDDP, carboplatin, or CTX between 2006 and 2011. The human papillomavirus status was unknown. The primary outcome was 2-year overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Four hundred nine patients receiving concurrent CDDP (n = 167), carboplatin (n = 69), or CTX (n = 173) were included. Those who were older, those who were nonwhite, and those with a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 2 were less likely to receive CDDP. Two-year OS was inferior with CTX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.60; P = .020) and no different with carboplatin (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.73-2.35; P = .362) in a Cox proportional hazards model (reference CDDP). There was no statistically significant difference between carboplatin and CTX (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.77-2.14; P = .891). Rates of antiemetic use and hospital visits for nausea/emesis/diarrhea or dehydration were statistically higher with CDDP. Pneumonia rates were higher with carboplatin. In the multivariate model, the corrected mean per-patient spending was significantly higher for CTX and carboplatin than CDDP ($61,133 and $65,721 vs $48,709). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received CDDP had improved OS. CDDP was also associated with slightly lower overall costs and higher antiemetic usage and hospital visit rates, although a strong selection bias was observed because those receiving CTX and carboplatin were older and had higher comorbidity scores.

The Pharmacological Costs of Second-Line Treatments for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In ovarian cancer, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrence; therefore, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the drugs administered and the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS and OS. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in Euros (&OV0556;). We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, including 2004 patients. The most relevant increase of costs was associated with the combination chemotherapy including trabectedin, with the highest costs for month of PFS gained (15,836 &OV0556;) and for month of OS gained (7198 &OV0556;), but it substantially differs considering the data of partially platinum-sensitive populations (platinum-free interval of 6-12 months), with 3959 &OV0556; for month of OS gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer can lead to an increase of pharmacological costs. Differently, considering OS in patients with platinum-free interval of 6 to 12 months, there is a halving of pharmacological costs with the addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. These costs are in line with the spending suggested as sustainable (thresholds of <$61,500 per life-year gained).

Cost-Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma.

Purpose Patients who are diagnosed with stage IV metastatic melanoma have an estimated 5-year relative survival rate of only 17%. Randomized controlled trials of recent US Food and Drug Administration-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors-pembrolizumab (PEM), nivolumab (NIVO), and ipilumumab (IPI)-demonstrate improved patient outcomes, but the optimal treatment sequence in patients with BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma remains unclear. To inform policy makers about the value of these treatments, we developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for sequencing novel agents for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Materials and Methods We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and lifetime horizon to estimate costs (2016 US$) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for treatment sequences with first-line NIVO, IPI, NIVO + IPI, PEM every 2 weeks, and PEM every 3 weeks. Health states were defined for initial treatment, first and second progression, and death. Rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death obtained from randomized phase III trials were used to determine the likelihood of transition between states. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Results PEM every 3 weeks followed by second-line IPI was both more effective and less costly than dacarbazine followed by IPI then NIVO, or IPI followed by NIVO. Compared with the first-line dacarbazine treatment strategy, NIVO followed by IPI produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $90,871/QALY, and first-line NIVO + IPI followed by carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $198,867/QALY. Conclusion For patients with treatment-naive BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma, first-line PEM every 3 weeks followed by second-line IPI or first-line NIVO followed by second-line IPI are the most cost-effective, immune-based treatment strategies for metastatic melanoma.

Time-Series Modeling and Simulation for Comparative Cost-Effective Analysis in Cancer Chemotherapy: An Application to Platinum-Based Regimens for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

The purpose of this study was to propose a time-series modeling and simulation (M&S) strategy for probabilistic cost-effective analysis in cancer chemotherapy using a Monte-Carlo method based on data available from the literature. The simulation included the cost for chemotherapy, for pharmaceutical care for adverse events (AEs) and other medical costs. As an application example, we describe the analysis for the comparison of four regimens, cisplatin plus irinotecan, carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP), and cisplatin plus vinorelbine, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The factors, drug efficacy explained by overall survival or time to treatment failure, frequency and severity of AEs, utility value of AEs to determine QOL, the drugs' and other medical costs in Japan, were included in the model. The simulation was performed and quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. An index, percentage of superiority (%SUP) which is the rate of the increased cost vs. QALY-gained plots within the area of positive QALY-gained and also below some threshold values of the ICER, was calculated as functions of threshold values of the ICER. An M&S process was developed, and for the simulation example, the GP regimen was the most cost-effective, in case of threshold values of the ICER=$70000/year, the %SUP for the GP are more than 50%. We developed an M&S process for probabilistic cost-effective analysis, this method would be useful for decision-making in choosing a cancer chemotherapy regimen in terms of pharmacoeconomic.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Evidence from the ICON7 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is used extensively in the treatment of cancer, including advanced ovarian cancer, for which results of the International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON) 7 trial have been recently reported. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) recent decision not to recommend bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer was not based on evidence related to the unlicensed lower dosage (7.5 mg/kg) of the drug despite its use in the English National Health Service (NHS) and the ICON7 trial. OBJECTIVE: To report on the findings of an analysis that considered whether the lower dose is cost-effective. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis is assessed from the perspective of the English NHS and health outcomes expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis focuses on a clinically predefined high-risk subgroup of the ICON7 trial. The price at which the lower dose of bevacizumab could be considered cost-effective for the English NHS is presented for a range of scenarios to inform decisions about price negotiations by international health systems. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, bevacizumab has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £48,975 per additional QALY, which is above NICE's standard cost-effectiveness threshold (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY). The official price of bevacizumab in 2013 was between £2.31 and £2.63 per milligram. A price reduction of between 46% and 67%, dependent on the NICE threshold, would be required for the product to be cost-effective in the high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The lower dose of bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer is not cost-effective based on the product's list price and using NICE's cost-effectiveness thresholds. Significant price discounts would be needed to make the drug affordable to the NHS.

Cost Analyses in the US and Japan: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Applied to the PRONOUNCE Trial in Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Health technology assessment is not required for regulatory submission or approval in either the United States (US) or Japan. This study was designed as a cross-country evaluation of cost analyses conducted in the US and Japan based on the PRONOUNCE phase III lung cancer trial, which compared pemetrexed plus carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (PemC) versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (PCB). METHODS: Two cost analyses were conducted in accordance with International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research good research practice standards. Costs were obtained based on local pricing structures; outcomes were considered equivalent based on the PRONOUNCE trial results. Other inputs were included from the trial data (e.g., toxicity rates) or from local practice sources (e.g., toxicity management). The models were compared across key input and transferability factors. RESULTS: Despite differences in local input data, both models demonstrated a similar direction, with the cost of PemC being consistently lower than the cost of PCB. The variation in individual input parameters did affect some of the specific categories, such as toxicity, and impacted sensitivity analyses, with the cost differential between comparators being greater in Japan than in the US. CONCLUSION: When economic models are based on clinical trial data, many inputs and outcomes are held consistent. The alterable inputs were not in and of themselves large enough to significantly impact the results between countries, which were directionally consistent with greater variation seen in sensitivity analyses. The factors that vary across jurisdictions, even when minor, can have an impact on trial-based economic analyses. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of EGFR mutation testing and gefitinib as first-line therapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The combination use of gefitinib and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing is a standard first-line therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we examined the cost-effectiveness of this approach in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our analysis compared the 'EGFR testing strategy', in which EGFR mutation testing was performed before treatment and patients with EGFR mutations received gefitinib while those without mutations received standard chemotherapy, to the 'no-testing strategy,' in which genetic testing was not conducted and all patients were treated with standard chemotherapy. A three-state Markov model was constructed to predict expected costs and outcomes for each strategy. We included only direct medical costs from the healthcare payer's perspective. Outcomes in the model were based on those reported in the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The incremental cost and effectiveness per patient of the 'EGFR testing strategy' compared to the 'no-testing strategy' was estimated to be approximately JP¥122,000 (US$1180; US$1=JP¥104 as of February 2014) and 0.036 QALYs. The ICER was then calculated to be around JP¥3.38 million (US$32,500) per QALY gained. These results suggest that the 'EGFR testing strategy' is cost-effective compared with the 'no-testing strategy' when JP¥5.0 million to 6.0 million per QALY gained is considered an acceptable threshold. These results were supported by the sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: The combination use of gefitinib and EGFR testing can be considered a cost-effective first-line therapy compared to chemotherapy such as carboplatin-paclitaxel for the treatment for NSCLC in Japan.

PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive (PS) recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: Two separate decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with PS recurrent ovarian cancer, one for patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation and one for patients with wild-type BRCA1/2. Patients received six cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Drug costs were estimated using 2014-2015 wholesale acquisition costs. The cost of olaparib was estimated at $13,440 per month. Rate of germline BRCA1/2 mutation was estimated at 20%. Progression-free survival was determined from published data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis estimated the cost at which olaparib would be cost-effective. RESULTS: We estimated that there were 5549 patients diagnosed with PS recurrent ovarian cancer in the United States annually. The cost of observation in 1110 patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation was $5.5 million (M) versus $169.2M for maintenance therapy with olaparib. The ICER for olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with a BRCA mutation was $258,864 per PF-LYS. If the cost of olaparib was decreased to $2500 per month, the ICER was $49,584. For the 4439 patients with wild-type BRCA, the cost of maintenance therapy was $444.2M; the ICER was $600,552 per PF-LYS. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, maintenance therapy with olaparib is not cost-effective with an ICER of $258,864 per PF-LYS. To achieve an ICER of less than $50,000, the cost of olaparib should be $2500 or less per month. For wild-type BRCA1/2 patients, maintenance therapy with olaparib is not cost-effective.

A cost-utility analysis of NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol 218: incorporating prospectively collected quality-of-life scores in an economic model of treatment of ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate quality-of-life (QOL)-adjusted cost-utility with addition of bevacizumab (B) to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC) for primary treatment of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: A modified Markov state transition model of 3 regimens evaluated in GOG 218 (PC, PC+concurrent B [PCB], and PCB+maintenance B [PCB+B]) was populated by prospectively collected survival, adverse event, and QOL data from GOG 218. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were modeled using primary event data. Costs of grade 4 hypertension, grade 3-5 bowel events, and growth factor support were incorporated. QOL scores were converted to utilities and incorporated into the model. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in estimates. RESULTS: PC was the least expensive ($4044) and least effective (mean 1.1 quality-adjusted progression-free years [QA-PFY]) regimen. PCB ($43,703 and 1.13 QA-PFY) was dominated by a combination of PC and PCB+B. PCB+B ($122,700 and 1.25 QA-PFY) was the most expensive regimen with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $792,380/QA-PFY compared to PC. In a model not incorporating QOL, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PCB+B was $632,571/PFY compared to PC. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost-utility model, incorporation of QOL into an analysis of GOG 218 led to less favorable ICER (by >$150,000/QA-PFY) in regimens containing B compared with those that do not include B. Continued investigation of populations with ovarian cancer in whom the efficacy of treatment with bevacizumab is expected to be increased (or in whom QOL is expected to increase with use) is critical.

Bevacizumab in treatment of high-risk ovarian cancer--a cost-effectiveness analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate a cost-effectiveness strategy of bevacizumab in a subset of high-risk advanced ovarian cancer patients with survival benefit. Methods. A subset analysis of the International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 trial showed that additions of bevacizumab (B) and maintenance bevacizumab (mB) to paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) improved the overall survival (OS) of high-risk advanced cancer patients. Actual and estimated costs of treatment were determined from Medicare payment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year saved was established. Results. The estimated cost of PC is $535 per cycle; PCB + mB (7.5 mg/kg) is $3,760 per cycle for the first 6 cycles and then $3,225 per cycle for 12 mB cycles. Of 465 high-risk stage IIIC (>1 cm residual) or stage IV patients, the previously reported OS after PC was 28.8 months versus 36.6 months in those who underwent PCB + mB. With an estimated 8-month improvement in OS, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of B was $167,771 per life-year saved. Conclusion. In this clinically relevant subset of women with high-risk advanced ovarian cancer with overall survival benefit after bevacizumab, our economic model suggests that the incremental cost of bevacizumab was approximately $170,000.

[Chemotherapy in male external genital organs (testicular and penile cancer)]. / Chimiothérapie des organes génitaux externes chez l'homme (cancer du testicule et du pénis).

AIM: To describe drugs used in the chemotherapy of testis and penis neoplasms. MATERIAL: Bibliographical search was performed from the database Medline (National Library of Medicine, PubMed) and websites of the HAS and the ANSM. The search was focused on the characteristics, the mode of action, the efficiency and the side effects of the various drugs concerned. RESULTS: Nowadays, the chemotherapy is perfectly codified in adjuvant treatment or in first-line treatment of metastatic testis cancer. A single dose of carboplatin for seminoma testicular (stage I) in adjuvant treatment situation is one of the latest advances. Concerning penis cancer, the optimal protocols validated by a high level of evidence are missing. CONCLUSION: The chemotherapy in testis and penis neoplasms knew few advances in recent years. So, it is necessary to include patients in clinical research protocols.