A cost analysis of sorafenib for desmoid tumors.

INTRODUCTION: A recent randomized trial demonstrated that sorafenib improved progression free survival (PFS) in patients with desmoid tumors despite many patients experiencing stable disease or spontaneous regression without treatment. Utilizing these trial data, we performed a cost analysis of sorafenib efficacy through two years of treatment. METHODS: Current Medicare Part D rates for sorafenib were utilized (dose 400 mg/day, cost $309/day). Annual costs per progression and objective response were calculated. Radiologic progression and response were defined using RECIST criteria. Patients with disease progression were separately analyzed in two groups: both clinical and radiologic (CAR), and radiologic alone. RESULTS: 84 previously randomized patients were analyzed (placebo: 35, sorafenib: 49). At one year, sorafenib was associated with a 43% absolute risk reduction (ARR) of CAR progression and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 2.3 patients/year, costing $259,406. At two years, ARR was 48% and NNT of 2.1 patients/year, costing $473,697. When evaluating only patients with RECIST defined radiologic progression, sorafenib patients experienced ARR of 13.9% with NNT 7.2 and estimated costs of $812,052 at one year. Two-year ARR was 17.5% with NNT 5.7 and estimated costs $1,285,052. Sorafenib patients experienced improved RECIST partial response rates at 1 and 2 years of 14.7% and 14.3%, with NNT 6.8 and 6.9, and costs of $766,938 and $1,556,433; respectively. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of desmoid tumors, Sorafenib led to improved PFS, but at a significant cost per patient. Favorable RECIST outcomes were less likely and costlier. Patients should be informed of possible benefits of treatment versus potential financial burden.

Meta-Analysis on the Effect of Pasireotide for Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula.

BACKGROUND: A randomized controlled trial of routine administration of pasireotide demonstrated decreased incidence of clinically significant postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). Recent studies have not replicated these results. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate its efficacy in this setting. METHODS: Prospective trials utilizing pasireotide prophylactically after pancreatectomy were reviewed. The primary outcome was clinically significant POPF. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, and mortality. Study heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS: Five studies totaling 1571 patients were identified. There was no difference in age, sex, or cancer rates. Pasireotide patients had smaller pancreatic ducts (P < .001) and softer glands (P = .04). For all pancreatectomies, there was no difference in POPF rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.84; 95% CI 0.60-1.16, P = .29). Patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.30-1.63, P = .41) had similar rates of POPF versus pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) patients who experienced a lower incidence of POPF (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.42-0.86, P = .006).Mortality rates and LOS were similar. Readmission rates were decreased with pasireotide (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Routine administration of pasireotide did not decrease POPF rates for all pancreatectomies, but was associated with lower rates for PD, and decreased readmission rates. Further prospective, randomized studies are warranted.