Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab versus standard of care for third-line patients with small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: To estimate the comparative effectiveness of nivolumab versus standard of care (SOC) in terms of overall survival (OS) for small-cell lung cancer patients treated with two prior lines of chemotherapy, in other words, third line in the USA. Materials & methods: Data were from CheckMate 032, a single-arm trial of nivolumab, and real-world electronic patient records. Comparisons of OS were conducted using three different methods to adjust for differences (regression, weighting and doubly robust) between the populations. Results: Nivolumab was associated with longer survival compared with SOC (hazard ratio for OS: 0.58-0.70) across all methods for adjustment. Conclusion: Nivolumab was more efficacious in terms of OS as third-line treatment for small-cell lung cancer compared with current SOC in the USA.

Indirect comparison of nivolumab ± ipilimumab (CheckMate 032) versus other treatments for recurrent small-cell lung cancer.

Aim: To estimate the comparative efficacy of nivolumab ± ipilimumab versus alternative treatments for small-cell lung cancer after at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review identified six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that could be connected in a network. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves from these RCTs were synthesized using network meta-analysis models. Aggregate-level matching was used to connect CheckMate 032 to the RCTs. Results: CheckMate 032 was connected to the network by Amrubicin Clinical Trial-1. Nivolumab ± ipilimumab had a more durable tumor response and more favorable long-term survival versus topotecan via intravenous and versus amrubicin. Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapies for recurrent small-cell lung cancer, nivolumab ± ipilimumab improves response duration, which may translate to long-term survival benefits.

Penile cancer treatment costs in England.

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer is a rare malignancy in Western countries, with an incidence rate of around 1 per 100,000. Due to its rarity, most treatment recommendations are based on small trials and case series reports. Furthermore, data on the resource implications are scarce. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual economic burden of treating penile cancer in England between 2006 and 2011 and the cost of treating a single case based on a modified version of the European Association of Urology penile cancer treatment guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective (non-comparative) case series was performed using data extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patient admission data for invasive penile cancer or carcinoma in situ of the penis was extracted by ICD-10 code and matched to data from the 2010/11 National Tariff to calculate the mean number of patients and associated annual cost. A mathematical model was simultaneously developed to estimate mean treatment costs per patient based on interventions and their associated outcomes, advised under a modified version of the European Association of Urologists Treatment Guidelines. RESULTS: Approximately 640 patients per year received some form of inpatient care between 2006 and 2011, amounting to an average of 1,292 spells of care; with an average of 48 patients being treated in an outpatient setting. Mean annual costs per invasive penile cancer inpatient and outpatient were £3,737 and £1,051 respectively, with total mean annual costs amounting to £2,442,020 (excluding high cost drugs). The mean cost per case, including follow-up, was estimated to be £7,421 to £8,063. Results were sensitive to the setting in which care was delivered. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of penile cancer consumes similar levels of resource to other urological cancers. This should be factored in to decisions concerning new treatment modalities as well as choices around resource allocation in specialist treatment centres and the value of preventative measures.

The association of human papillomavirus vaccination with sexual behaviours and human papillomavirus knowledge: a systematic review.

Since the 2008 introduction of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme for adolescent girls in the UK, parents and other groups have expressed fears that immunisation condones sexual activity, promotes promiscuity and encourages risky sexual behaviour. This study aimed to explore whether HPV vaccination programmes have increased knowledge surrounding HPV and associated disease and whether uptake has influenced sexual behaviour. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO electronic databases were interrogated. Studies of behaviour, attitudes and knowledge associated with HPV vaccination (or vaccination intent) in subjects of any age and gender in programmes reflective of UK practice were included in the review (n = 58). The evidence regarding the association of HPV vaccination with high-risk sexual behaviour was varied, primarily due to the heterogeneous nature of the included studies. Young females typically exhibited better knowledge than males, and vaccinated respondents (or those with vaccination intent) had higher levels of knowledge than the unvaccinated. However, knowledge surrounding HPV and genital warts was generally poor. This review highlights the need to provide effective education regarding the HPV vaccine and HPV-associated disease to adolescents of vaccination age, nurses, teachers, parents and guardians to ultimately allow informed decisions to be made regarding receipt of the HPV vaccine.

The cost of anal cancer in England: retrospective hospital data analysis and Markov model.

BACKGROUND: Anal cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach to treatment with often complex interventions. Little is known regarding the associated costs and resource use. METHODS: Patient records were extracted from a national hospital database to estimate the number of patients treated for anal cancer in England. Identified resource use was linked to published UK cost estimates to quantify the reimbursement of treatment through the Payment by Results system. A mathematical model was developed simultaneously to validate findings and to calculate the average 10-year cost of treating a squamous cell anal carcinoma case from diagnosis. The model utilised data from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland's anal cancer position statement. RESULTS: On average, 1,564 patients were admitted to hospital and 389 attended an outpatient facility per year. The average annual cost per inpatient and outpatient ranged from £4,562-£5,230 and £1,146-£1,335, respectively. Based on the model estimates, the inflated cost per case was between £16,470-£16,652. Results were most sensitive to the mode of admission for primary treatment and the costs of staging/diagnosis (inflated range: £14,309-£23,264). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations in the available data, these results indicate that the cost of treating anal cancer is significant. Further observational work is required in order to verify these findings.