Clinical outcomes for previously treated patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis.

Aim: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy of treatments for previously treated advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. Materials & methods: Databases were searched for studies evaluating treatments for advanced (unresectable and/or metastatic) BTC patients who progressed on prior therapy. Pooled estimates of objective response rate (ORR), median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Results: Across 31 studies evaluating chemotherapy or targeted treatment regimens in an unselected advanced BTC patient population, pooled ORR was 6.9%, median OS was 6.6 months and median PFS was 3.2 months. Conclusion: The efficacy of conventional treatments for previously treated advanced BTC patients is poor and could be improved by novel therapies.

What is this article about? Most patients with biliary tract cancer are identified with advanced disease, and almost all go through a worsening of the disease after their first treatment. For patients who go on to receive their next treatment, current guidelines are unclear regarding the best treatment choice. Therefore, we examined the available medical literature and performed an analysis of multiple studies to calculate overall estimates of the clinical value of standard treatments for these patients. Our goal was to develop a benchmark against which to compare the clinical value of new treatments that are currently being assessed in clinical trials. What were the results? We identified 31 studies assessing standard treatments (involving chemotherapy or molecularly targeted treatments) in previously treated advanced biliary tract cancer patients. Across these studies, the objective tumor response rate was 6.9%, median overall survival was 6.6 months and median progression-free survival was 3.2 months. What do the results of the study mean? These results indicate that there is limited clinical value of standard treatments for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer whose disease worsened after first treatment. This medical need could potentially be met by new treatments, such as immunotherapies that restore the immune system's ability to attack cancer cells and thereby prolong patient survival.

Evaluation and Comparison of Real-World Databases for Conducting Research in Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Evaluating whether patient populations in clinico-genomic oncology databases are comparable with whom in other databases without genomic component is important. METHODS: Four databases were compared for colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and stage IV CRC cases: American Association for Cancer Research Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange Biopharma Collaborative (GENIE-BPC), The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), SEER-Medicare, and MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. These databases were also compared with the SEER registry database which serves as national benchmarks. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and overall survival were compared in patients with newly diagnosed CRC and patients with stage IV CRC across databases. Treatment patterns were further compared in patients with stage IV CRC. RESULTS: A total of 65,976 patients with CRC and 13,985 patients with stage IV CRC were identified. GENIE-BPC had the youngest patient population (mean age [years]: CRC, 54.1; stage IV CRC, 52.7). SEER-Medicare had the oldest patient population (CRC, 77.7; stage IV CRC, 77.3). Most patients were male and of White race across databases. GENIE-BPC had the highest proportion of patients with stage IV CRC (48.4% v other databases 13.8%-25.4%) and patients receiving treatments (95.7% v 37.6%-59.1%). Infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab was the most common regimen across databases accounting for 47.3%-78.5% of patients receiving first line of therapy. The median survival from diagnosis was 36, 94, 44 months (CRC) and 23, 36, 15 months (stage IV CRC) for patients in GENIE-BPC after left truncation, TCGA, and SEER-Medicare databases, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared with other databases, GENIE-BPC had the youngest patients with CRC with the most advanced disease and the largest proportion of patients receiving treatment. Investigators should consider adjustments when extrapolating results from clinico-genomic databases to the general CRC population.

Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for chemotherapy-based regimens in first-line MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer.

MICRO ABSTRACT: This retrospective observational study assessed real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among first-line MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Of 150 patients in the study cohort, 38.7% were treated with chemotherapy and 61.3% with chemotherapy + EGFR/VEGF inhibitor (EGFRi/VEGFi). Clinical outcomes were better among patients who received chemotherapy + EGFR/VEGF inhibitor than those who received chemotherapy. INTRODUCTION: Prior to pembrolizumab approval in first-line (1L) treatment of MSI-H/dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), patients were managed with chemotherapy with or without an EGFRi or VEGFi, agnostic of biomarker testing or mutation status. This study assessed real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among 1L MSI-H/dMMR mCRC patients treated with standard of care (SOC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational evaluation of patients ≥18 years diagnosed with stage IV MSI-H/dMMR mCRC who received community-based oncology care. Eligible patients were identified (01-Jun-2017 - 29-Feb-2020) and followed longitudinally until 31-Aug-2020/the last patient record/date of death. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 150 1L MSI-H/dMMR mCRC patients, 38.7% were treated with chemotherapy and 61.3% with chemotherapy + EGFRi/VEGFi. Accounting for censoring, the overall median real-world time to treatment discontinuation (95% CI) was 5.3 (4.4, 5.8) months; 3.0 (2.1, 4.4) and 6.2 (5.5, 7.6) months in the chemotherapy and chemotherapy + EGFRi/VEGFi cohorts, respectively. The combined median overall survival was 27.7 (23.2, not reached [NR]) months; 25.3 (14.5, NR) and 29.8 (23.2, NR) months in the chemotherapy and chemotherapy + EGFRi/VEGFi cohorts, respectively. The overall median real-world progression-free survival was 6.8 (5.3, 7.8) months; 4.2 (2.8, 6.1) and 7.7 (6.1, 10.2) months in the chemotherapy and chemotherapy + EGFRi/VEGFi cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 1L MSI-H/dMMR mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy with EGFRi/VEGFi had better outcomes than those receiving only chemotherapy. An unmet need and opportunity to improve outcomes exists in this population that may be addressed by newer treatments like immunotherapies.

Clinical Outcomes for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although second-line treatments improve survival compared to best supportive care in patients with advanced gastric cancer with disease progression on first-line therapy, prognosis remains poor. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to quantify the efficacy of second-or-later line systemic therapies in this target population. METHODS: A systematic literature review (January 1, 2000 to July 6, 2021) of Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL with additional searches of 2019-2021 annual ASCO and ESMO conferences was conducted to identify studies in the target population. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed among studies involving chemotherapies and targeted therapies relevant in treatment guidelines and HTA activities. Outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) presented as Kaplan-Meier data. Randomized controlled trials reporting any of the outcomes of interest were included. For OS and PFS, individual patient-level data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Forty-four trials were eligible for the analysis. Pooled ORR (42 trials; 77 treatment arms; 7256 participants) was 15.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.5%). Median OS from the pooled analysis (34 trials; 64 treatment arms; 60,350 person-months) was 7.9 months (95% CI 7.4-8.5). Median PFS from the pooled analysis (32 trials; 61 treatment arms; 28,860 person-months) was 3.5 months (95% CI 3.2-3.7). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms poor prognosis among patients with advanced gastric cancer, following disease progression on first-line therapy. Despite the approved, recommended, and experimental systemic treatments available, there is still an unmet need for novel interventions for this indication.

Clinical outcomes of chemotherapy-based therapies for previously treated advanced colorectal cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of standard therapies in previously treated, advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases (January 2000-July 2021), annual oncology conferences (2019-2021), and clinicaltrials.gov to identify studies evaluating the use of licensed interventions in second-line or later settings. The primary outcome of interest was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). ORR was pooled using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. For survival outcomes, published Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and PFS were digitized to re-construct individual patient-level data and pooled following the methodology described by Combescure et al. (2014). RESULTS: Twenty-three trials evaluating standard chemotherapies with or without targeted therapies across 4,791 advanced CRC patients contributed to our meta-analysis. In the second-line setting, the random effects pooled estimate of ORR was 22.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18.0, 27.1), median PFS was 7.0 months (95% CI: 6.4, 7.4), and median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI: 13.6, 16.1). In the third-line or later setting, the random effects pooled estimate of ORR was 1.7% (95% CI: 0.8, 2.7), median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 2.0, 2.8), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI: 7.1, 9.1). CONCLUSION: Standard treatments have limited efficacy in the second-line or later setting with worsening outcomes in later lines. Given the global burden of CRC, further research into novel and emerging therapeutic options following treatment failure is needed.

Health-related quality of life in patients treated with pembrolizumab for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient advanced solid tumours: Results from the KEYNOTE-158 study.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-158 study (NCT02628067), pembrolizumab showed a high objective response rate and durable clinical benefit for patients with previously treated, unresectable/metastatic microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair‒deficient (dMMR) non-colorectal solid tumours. We present health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results from the MSI-H/dMMR population (cohort K). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had previously treated MSI-H/dMMR advanced non-colorectal solid tumours, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, and ECOG performance status ≤1. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles (2 years). The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and EQ-5D-3L were administered at baseline, at regular intervals throughout treatment, and 30 days after treatment discontinuation. Prespecified analyses (exploratory endpoints) included the magnitude of change from baseline to post-baseline timepoints in all patients and by the best overall response for QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL, QLQ-C30 functional/symptom scales/items, and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) score. RESULTS: At data cutoff (October 5, 2020), 351 patients were enrolled, of whom 311 and 315 completed baseline QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, respectively. QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores improved from baseline to week 9 (mean [95% CI] change, 3.07 [0.19-5.94]), then remained stable or improved by week 111, with greater improvements observed in patients with a best response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) (10.85 [6.36-15.35]). Patients with CR/PR showed improvements in physical (5.58 [1.91-9.25]), role (9.88 [3.80-15.97]), emotional (5.62 [1.56-9.68]), and social (8.33 [2.70-13.97]) functioning, and stable cognitive functioning (1.74 [-1.45 to 4.94]). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab generally improved or preserved HRQoL in patients with previously treated MSI-H/dMMR advanced non-colorectal solid tumours.

Adjusting for treatment switching in the METRIC study shows further improved overall survival with trametinib compared with chemotherapy.

Trametinib, a selective inhibitor of mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1 (MEK1) and MEK2, significantly improves progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM). However, the pivotal clinical trial permitted randomized chemotherapy control group patients to switch to trametinib after disease progression, which confounded estimates of the overall survival (OS) advantage of trametinib. Our purpose was to estimate the switching-adjusted treatment effect of trametinib for OS and assess the suitability of each adjustment method in the primary efficacy population. Of the patients randomized to chemotherapy, 67.4% switched to trametinib. We applied the rank-preserving structural failure time model, inverse probability of censoring weights, and a two-stage accelerated failure time model to obtain estimates of the relative treatment effect adjusted for switching. The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis estimated a 28% reduction in the hazard of death with trametinib treatment (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98) for patients in the primary efficacy population (data cut May 20, 2013). Adjustment analyses deemed plausible provided OS HR point estimates ranging from 0.48 to 0.53. Similar reductions in the HR were estimated for the first-line metastatic subgroup. Treatment with trametinib, compared with chemotherapy, significantly reduced the risk of death and risk of disease progression in patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive advanced melanoma or MM. Adjusting for switching resulted in lower HRs than those obtained from standard ITT analyses. However, CI are wide and results are sensitive to the assumptions associated with each adjustment method.

Cost and economic burden of adverse events associated with metastatic melanoma treatments in five countries.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate per-event cost and economic burden associated with managing the most common and/or severe metastatic melanoma (MM) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. METHODS: AEs associated with chemotherapy (dacarbazine, paclitaxel, fotemustine), immunotherapy (ipilimumab), and targeted therapy (vemurafenib) were identified by literature review. Medical resource use data associated with managing AEs were collected through two blinded Delphi panel cycles in each of the five countries. Published costs were used to estimate per-event costs and combined with AEs incidence, treatment usage, and MM prevalence to estimate the economic burden for each country. RESULTS: The costliest AEs were grade 3/4 events due to immunotherapy (Australia/France: colitis; UK: diarrhea) and chemotherapy (Germany/Italy: neutropenia/leukopenia). Treatment of AEs specific to chemotherapy (Australia/Germany/Italy/France: neutropenia/leukopenia) and targeted therapy (UK: squamous cell carcinoma) contributed heavily to country-specific economic burden. LIMITATIONS: Economic burden was estimated assuming that each patient experienced an AE only once. In addition, the context of settings was heterogeneous and the number of Delphi panel experts was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Management costs for MM treatment-associated AEs can be substantial. Results could be incorporated in economic models that support reimbursement dossiers. With the availability of newer treatments, establishment of a baseline measure of the economic burden of AEs will be crucial for assessing their impact on patients and regional healthcare systems.

Comparison of dabrafenib and trametinib combination therapy with vemurafenib monotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous BRAF Val600-mutation-positive melanoma (COMBI-v): results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COMBI-v trial, patients with previously untreated BRAF Val600Glu or Val600Lys mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who were treated with the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib had significantly longer overall and progression-free survival than those treated with vemurafenib alone. Here, we present the effects of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), an exploratory endpoint in the COMBI-v study. METHODS: COMBI-v was an open-label, randomised phase 3 study in which 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF Val600 mutation were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice-daily) and trametinib (2 mg once-daily) or vemurafenib monotherapy (960 mg twice-daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival. In this pre-specified exploratory analysis, we prospectively assessed HRQoL in the intention-to-treat population with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30), EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D), and Melanoma Subscale of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), completed at baseline, during study treatment, at disease progression, and after progression. We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between groups with baseline score as covariate; all p-values are descriptive. The COMBI-v trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01597908, and is ongoing for the primary endpoint, but is not recruiting patients. FINDINGS: From June 4, 2012, to Oct 7, 2013, 1645 patients at 193 centres worldwide were screened for eligibility, and 704 patients were randomly assigned to dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=352) or vemurafenib (n=352). Questionnaire completion rates for both groups were high (>95% at baseline, >80% at follow-up assessments, and >70% at disease progression) with similar HRQoL and symptom scores reported at baseline in both treatment groups for all questionnaires. Differences in mean scores between treatment groups were significant and clinically meaningful in favour of the combination compared with vemurafenib monotherapy for most domains across all three questionnaires during study treatment and at disease progression, including EORTC QLQ-C30 global health (7·92, 7·62, 6·86, 7·47, 5·16, 7·56, and 7·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·005 at week 40), EORTC QLQ-C30 pain (-13·20, -8·05, -8·82, -12·69, -12·46, -11·41, and -10·57 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001), EQ-5D thermometer scores (7·96, 8·05, 6·83, 11·53, 7·41, 9·08, and 10·51 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; p<0·001 for all assessments except p=0·006 at week 32), and FACT-M Melanoma Subscale score (3·62, 2·93, 2·45, 3·39, 2·85, 3·00, and 3·68 at weeks 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, and disease progression, respectively; all p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: From the patient's perspective, which integrates not only survival advantage but also disease-associated and adverse-event-associated symptoms, treatment with the combination of a BRAF inhibitor plus a MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib plus trametinib) adds a clear benefit over monotherapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and supports the combination therapy as standard of care in this population.

Adjusting for confounding effects of treatment switching in a randomized phase II study of dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAF V600+ metastatic melanoma.

Patients with BRAF V600E mutation-positive melanoma who were assigned to 150 mg dabrafenib twice daily combined with 2 mg trametinib once daily in a phase I/II study showed a median overall survival (OS) of 23.8 months, compared with 20.2 months for patients assigned to dabrafenib alone [hazard ratio (HR)=0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.24; data cutoff March 2013], on the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis. Because patients assigned to dabrafenib monotherapy were allowed to switch to combination therapy upon disease progression, we attempted to adjust for confounding effects on OS. Randomization-based adjustment methods, Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Models and the Iterative Parameter Estimation algorithm, were used. Two analyses, 'treatment group' (assumes that treatment effect continues beyond treatment discontinuation) and 'on treatment' (assumes that the treatment effect disappears upon treatment discontinuation), were used to test assumptions on the durability of the treatment effect. A total of 45/54 (83%) patients assigned to dabrafenib monotherapy switched to the trametinib/dabrafenib combination. Adjusted OS HRs ranged from 0.47 to 0.50, depending on the analysis, compared with the unadjusted OS HR of 0.73. CIs continued to cross 1.00; thus, adjusted estimates did not provide statistically significant evidence of a treatment benefit on survival. Reduction of HRs after adjusting for the effect of treatment switching suggests that the intention-to-treat analysis underestimates the effect of dabrafenib plus trametinib on OS, although several factors, such as small trial size and methodological assumptions, affect the certainty of the conclusions.

Adjusting for the Confounding Effects of Treatment Switching-The BREAK-3 Trial: Dabrafenib Versus Dacarbazine.

BACKGROUND: Patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E mutation-positive melanoma in BREAK-3 showed a median overall survival (OS) of 18.2 months for dabrafenib versus 15.6 months for dacarbazine (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.21). Because patients receiving dacarbazine were allowed to switch to dabrafenib at disease progression, we attempted to adjust for the confounding effects on OS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTMs) and the iterative parameter estimation (IPE) algorithm were used. Two analyses, "treatment group" (assumes treatment effect could continue until death) and "on-treatment observed" (assumes treatment effect disappears with discontinuation), were used to test the assumptions around the durability of the treatment effect. RESULTS: A total of 36 of 63 patients (57%) receiving dacarbazine switched to dabrafenib. The adjusted OS HRs ranged from 0.50 to 0.55, depending on the analysis. The RPSFTM and IPE "treatment group" and "on-treatment observed" analyses performed similarly well. CONCLUSION: RPSFTM and IPE analyses resulted in point estimates for the OS HR that indicate a substantial increase in the treatment effect compared with the unadjusted OS HR of 0.76. The results are uncertain because of the assumptions associated with the adjustment methods. The confidence intervals continued to cross 1.00; thus, the adjusted estimates did not provide statistically significant evidence of a treatment benefit on survival. However, it is clear that a standard intention-to-treat analysis will be confounded in the presence of treatment switching-a reliance on unadjusted analyses could lead to inappropriate practice. Adjustment analyses provide useful additional information on the estimated treatment effects to inform decision making. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Treatment switching is common in oncology trials, and the implications of this for the interpretation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the novel treatment are important to consider. If patients who switch treatments benefit from the experimental treatment and a standard intention-to-treat analysis is conducted, the overall survival advantage associated with the new treatment could be underestimated. The present study applied established statistical methods to adjust for treatment switching in a trial that compared dabrafenib and dacarbazine for metastatic melanoma. The results showed that this led to a substantially increased estimate of the overall survival treatment effect associated with dabrafenib.

Health-related quality of life impact in a randomised phase III study of the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600 metastatic melanoma.

AIM: To present the impact of treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the double-blind, randomised phase III COMBI-d study that investigated the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. COMBI-d showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival for the combination. METHODS: HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, a generic cancer questionnaire (completed at baseline, during study treatment, at progression and post progression) assessing various dimensions (global health/QoL, functional status, and symptom impact). A mixed-model, repeated-measures analyses of covariance evaluated differences between arms. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rates were >95% at baseline, >85% to week 40 and >70% at disease progression. Baseline scores across both arms were comparable for all dimensions. Global health dimension scores were significantly better at weeks 8, 16 and 24 for patients receiving the combination during treatment and at progression. The majority of functional dimension scores (physical, social, role, emotional and cognitive functioning) trended in favour of the combination. Pain scores were significantly improved and clinically meaningful (6-13 point difference) for patients receiving the combination for all follow-up assessments versus those receiving dabrafenib monotherapy. For other symptom dimensions (nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, dyspnoea, and constipation), scores trended in favour of dabrafenib monotherapy. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib provides better preservation of HRQoL and pain improvements versus dabrafenib monotherapy while also delaying progression. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT01584648).

Cost effectiveness of dabrafenib as a first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and vemurafenib as first-line treatments in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with three mutually exclusive health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead) was used. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated using survival distributions for progression-free and overall survival derived from pivotal trials of dabrafenib and vemurafenib. For each treatment, expected progression-free, post-progression, overall, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were calculated. Costs were based on list prices, a clinician survey, and published sources. A 5-year time horizon was used in the base case. Costs (in 2012 Canadian dollars [CA$]) and QALYs were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Dabrafenib was estimated to yield 0.2055 more QALYs at higher cost than dacarbazine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CA$363,136/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, there was an 8.2% probability that dabrafenib is cost effective versus dacarbazine. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, cost effectiveness was sensitive to survival distributions, utilities, and time horizon, with the hazard ratio for overall survival for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine being the most sensitive parameter. Assuming a class effect for efficacy of BRAF inhibitors, dabrafenib was dominant versus vemurafenib (less costly, equally effective), reflecting its assumed lower daily cost. Assuming no class effect, dabrafenib yielded 0.0486 more QALYs than vemurafenib. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, dabrafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with dacarbazine. It is not possible to make reliable conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus vemurafenib based on available information.

Economic burden of brain metastases among patients with metastatic melanoma in a USA managed care population.

Malignant melanoma patients frequently relapse with metastases in the brain, making it the third most common cancer-causing brain metastases in the USA. Management of brain metastases remains challenging because of the rapid progression of disease and ineffectiveness of conventional therapies. This retrospective study, with a 'pre/post' design, quantifies the economic burden of brain metastases among melanoma patients in the USA. A large managed-care insurance claims database (2000 Q1-2011 Q3) was used to identify patients with melanoma and brain metastases. The preperiod was defined as the 6 months before the index date (diagnosis of first observed brain metastases) and postperiod as the period following the index date up to 12 months. All-cause and brain metastasis-related healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs were compared on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis between preperiods and postperiods. The study included 6076 patients (mean age 63.4 years); 57.6% were men. Significant differences (P<0.0001) were observed between the postperiods and preperiods in the mean all-cause and brain metastasis-related PPPM hospitalizations and emergency department and outpatient visits. Significant postperiod versus preperiod differences were also observed in the PPPM mean (standard error) all-cause healthcare costs [total: $14 489 ($231) vs. $7277 ($116); inpatient: $6330 ($195) vs. $1900 ($69); outpatient: $6609 ($102) vs. $4449 ($79); P<0.0001 for all] and brain metastasis-related costs [total: $6542 ($145) vs. $1933 ($62); inpatient: $2976 ($118) vs. $472 ($39); outpatient: $3451 ($76) vs. $1413 ($47); P<0.0001 for all]. Radiotherapy was the most common treatment. The economic burden associated with brain metastases in melanoma is significant and underscores the need for newer therapies to improve outcomes in these patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lapatinib plus Letrozole in Post-Menopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-and HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the EGF30008 and TAnDEM (TrAstuzumab in Dual HER2 ER-positive Metastatic breast cancer) trials, anti-HER2 therapy plus an aromatase inhibitor (lapatinib + letrozole (LAP + LET) and trastuzumb + anastrozole (TZ + ANA), respectively) improved time to progression versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy (LET and ANA, respectively) in post-menopausal women with previously untreated hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A partitionedsurvival analysis model using data from EGF30008 and published results of TAnDEM and other literature was used to evaluate the incremental direct medical cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with LAP + LET versus LET, ANA, and TZ + ANA in post-menopausal women with previously untreated HR+ and HER2+ metastatic breast cancer from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: Incremental costs for LAP + LET are £ 34,737 versus LET, £ 35,995 versus ANA, and £ 5,513 versus TZ + ANA. Corresponding QALYs gained are 0.467, 0.601, and 0.252 years. Cost/QALY gained with LAP + LET is £ 74,448 versus LET, £ 59,895 versus ANA, and £ 21,836 versus TZ + ANA. Given a threshold of £ 30,000/QALY, the estimated probability that LAP + LET is cost-effective is 1.4% versus LET, 9.2% versus ANA, and 51% versus TZ + ANA. CONCLUSIONS: Based on criteria for the evaluation of health technologies in the UK (£ 30,000/QALY), LAP + LET is not likely to be cost-effective versus aromatase inhibitor monotherapy but may be cost-effective versus TZ + ANA, although the latter comparison is associated with substantial uncertainty.

Systematic review of lapatinib in combination with letrozole compared with other first-line treatments for hormone receptor positive(HR+) and HER2+ advanced or metastatic breast cancer(MBC).

BACKGROUND: Third-generation aromatase inhibitors (letrozole, anastrozole) have shown superior efficacy in early and advanced breast cancer compared with tamoxifen. For HR+, HER2+ MBC, combination of an AI with an anti-HER2 agent (lapatinib or trastuzumab) has shown clinical benefit. METHODS: Six databases were searched until January 2009 for randomized controlled clinical trials, assessing the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for postmenopausal women with HR+ and HER2 (ErbB2) positive MBC, who have not received prior therapy for advanced or metastatic disease. Relevant interventions were lapatinib, aromatase inhibitors, tamoxifen, and trastuzumab. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free-survival (PFS), time-to-progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Eighteen studies (62 papers) were included. Lapatinib + letrozole was significantly superior to letrozole alone based on a direct head-to-head study in terms of PFS/TTP and ORR. Using a network meta-analysis, compared with lapatinib + letrozole, tamoxifen (HR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.32, 0.65) and anastrozole (HR = 0.53 (0.36, 0.80)) scored significantly worse in terms of PFS/TTP and ORR (tamoxifen: OR = 0.25 (0.12, 0.53), anastrozole: OR = 0.27 (0.12, 0.58). The combination also seemed significantly superior to exemestane in terms of PFS/TTP (HR = 0.52 (0.34, 0.79)). Lapatinib + letrozole also seemed better, although not significantly, in terms of OS versus tamoxifen: HR = 0.74 (0.49, 1.12), anastrozole: HR = 0.71 (0.45, 1.14) and exemestane: HR = 0.65 (0.39, 1.11). When compared with trastuzumab + anastrozole, lapatinib + letrozole seemed to be better in terms of OS (HR = 0.85 (0.47, 1.54)), PFS/TTP (HR = 0.89 (0.54, 1.47)) and ORR (OR = 0.92 (0.24, 3.48)), although, none of these results were significant. DISCUSSION: Lapatinib + letrozole was significantly superior to letrozole in terms of PFS/TTP and ORR based on a direct head-to-head study. Indirect comparisons appeared to favor lapatinib + letrozole versus other first-line treatments used in this patient population in terms of three main outcomes: OS, PFS/TTP and ORR. Indirect comparison results are based on a network analysis for which the basic assumptions of homogeneity, similarity and consistency were not fulfilled. Therefore, despite the fact that these are the best available data, the results need to be interpreted with caution.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III trial of women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab, an anthracycline, and taxanes (EGF100151), lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) improved time to progression (TTP) versus capecitabine monotherapy (C-only). In a trial including HER2+ MBC patients who had received at least one prior course of trastuzumab and no more than one prior course of palliative chemotherapy (GBG 26/BIG 03-05), continued trastuzumab plus capecitabine (T+C) also improved TTP. METHODS: An economic model using patient-level data from EGF100151 and published results of GBG 26/BIG 03-05 as well as other literature were used to evaluate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained with L+C versus C-only and versus T+C in women with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: Expected costs were £28,816 with L+C, £13,985 with C-only and £28,924 with T+C. Corresponding QALYs were 0.927, 0.737 and 0.896. In the base case, L+C was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with T+C; cost per QALY gained was £77,993 with L+C versus C-only. In pairwise probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probability that L+C is preferred to C-only was 0.03 given a threshold of £30,000. The probability that L+C is preferred to T+C was 0.54 regardless of the threshold. CONCLUSIONS: When compared against capecitabine alone, the addition of lapatinib has a cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding the threshold normally used by NICE. Compared with T+C, L+C is dominant in the base case and approximately equally likely to be cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses over a wide range of threshold values.

Economic burden of resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in an incident cohort of patients in the UK.

BACKGROUND: SCCHN is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Locally advanced SCCHN continues to be a therapeutic challenge with high rates of morbidity and mortality and a low cure rate. Despite the apparent impact of SCCHN on patients and presumably society, the economic burden of the treatment of resected SCCHN patients in the UK has not been investigated. METHODS: This retrospective data analysis was based on in- and outpatient care records extracted from Hospital Episode Statistic database and linked to mortality data in the UK. SCCHN patients with resection of lip, tongue, oral cavity, pharynx or larynx were followed for at least one year (max. of 5 years) from the date of first resection. RESULTS: A total of 11,403 patients (mean age 63.2 years, 69.8% males) who met study criteria were followed for an average of 31 months. 32.3% of patients died in the follow-up period and the mean time to death was 16.9 months. In the first year, mean number of days of hospitalization and number of outpatient visits was 21.6 and 4.2, respectively; mean number of reconstructive and secondary surgeries was 0.32 and 0.14 per patient, respectively; 4.7% of the patients received radiotherapy and 12.2% received chemotherapy. From the second to fifth year healthcare utilizations rates were lower. Mean cost of post-operative healthcare utilization was £23,212 over 5 years (£19,778 for the first year and £1477, £847, £653 and £455 for years 2-5). Total cost of post-operative healthcare utilisation was estimated to be £255.5 million over the 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, SCCHN patients after surgical resection needed considerable healthcare resources and incurred substantial costs. Study findings might provide a useful source for clinicians and decision makers in understanding the economic burden of managing SCCHN in the UK and also suggests a need for new therapies that could improve outcomes and reduce the disease burden.

Quality-adjusted survival analysis of first-line treatment of hormone-receptor-positive HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with letrozole alone or in combination with lapatinib.

AIM: Compare first-line lapatinib plus letrozole (L + Let) versus letrozole monotherapy (Let) in hormone-receptor-positive HER2 + metastatic breast cancer, employing Q-TWiST (quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity) analysis to account for differences in progression times, with offsets for the impact of adverse events during the treatment period. METHODS: The area under survival curves for each treatment group was partitioned into distinct health states of varying utility: toxicity (TOX), time without toxicity or disease progression (TWiST), and the period following disease progression until death or end of follow-up (REL). The utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations was derived for each group. The threshold utility analysis evaluates how varying utility values across the states affects Q-TWiST differences between groups, although the method is limited by not varying utilities within each health state. RESULTS: The primary analysis population was the HER2 + subgroup (n = 219). There was no significant difference between treatments in mean duration of grade 3/4 adverse events prior to progression (L + Let = 1.95 weeks; Let = 2.14 weeks; P = 0.90). Using utility weights of 0.5 for TOX and REL, L + Let was favored for quality-adjusted survival by 8.8 weeks (P = 0.09). The Q-TWiST difference between treatment groups ranged from 8 to 9.5 weeks, favoring combination therapy for all hypothetical utility levels, but none of the comparisons were statistically significant at P = 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between L + Let versus Let in mean duration of severe adverse events. Quality-adjusted survival was favored for the combination treatment arm for all utility levels examined when toxicity was defined by grade 3/4 AEs, but differences between groups were not statistically significant.

Economic burden of resected squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in a US managed-care population.

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) places a high burden on society and poses complex challenges to healthcare providers. METHODS: Retrospective claims-based analysis of commercially insured patients identified between 01-31-04 and 12-31-07 with diagnostic evidence of cancer of the lip, tongue, oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx who underwent surgical resection during identification period. Outcomes included treatment patterns, healthcare utilization, and costs. All study variables were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Among the 1104 patients in the final study sample, 71.9% were male, with mean age 56.6 years. On average, patients were followed for 830 days (range of mean days: 805 for lip or tongue cancer to 847 for pharyngeal cancer). About half received radiation therapy during follow-up, whereas only 16.2% received chemotherapy. Patients with pharyngeal cancer were most likely to undergo chemotherapy. After their index surgery, 57.9% of patients had ≥1 inpatient stay, 44.9% had ≥1 ER visit, and all had ≥1 ambulatory visit. The percentage with ≥1 inpatient stay post-index was highest among patients with pharyngeal cancer (73.0%) and lowest in the laryngeal cancer cohort (49.5%). Mean number of hospitalized days, ER visits, and ambulatory visits was 0.45, 0.69, and 27.4, respectively, per-patient per-year. Overall, patients incurred ~$94 million in cost following index surgery ($85,000 per-person, on average). Mean total healthcare cost was $34,450 per-patient per-year, the bulk of which comprised medical expenses ($32,401). The highest mean healthcare cost was incurred by the pharyngeal cancer cohort ($40,214). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with resected SCCHN incur substantial healthcare costs and have high utilization rates. Results of this analysis are primarily applicable to resected SCCHN in a managed-care setting, and therefore may not be generalizable to the entire US population. Furthermore, disease stage is an important factor impacting outcomes, but these analyses did not stratify patients according to disease stage.