Cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment options for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Several strategies are available for the initial treatment of advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma, but the optimal strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the quality-adjusted effectiveness and costs of five modern treatment options for transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was developed using a 20-year time horizon. Five of the most common treatment approaches were selected based on clinical experience and expert opinion: (1) six cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), including data from the HD2000 trial, Viviani and colleagues, and EORTC trial; (2) six cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP; from the HD15 trial or PET-adapted as in the HD18 trial, two initial cycles of BEACOPP followed by four additional cycles for patients with a positive PET and either two or four additional cycles of BEACOPP for patients with a negative PET); (3) PET-adapted escalation (as in the RATHL trial, two cycles of standard ABVD chemotherapy followed by an additional four cycles of ABVD or AVD in PET-negative patients and four cycles of BEACOPP in PET-positive patients); (4) six cycles of brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (A-AVD) or ABVD as in the Echelon-1 trial; and (5) PET-adapted de-escalation (as in the AHL2011 trial, two cycles of BEACOPP followed by PET2 scan; PET-positive patients received two additional BEACOPP cycles and PET-negative patients received two cycles of ABVD; at PET4, PET-negative patients completed two further cycles of either ABVD or BEACOPP depending on what they received after PET2, and PET-positive patients received salvage therapy). Note that all uses of BEACOPP in these strategies were BEACOPPescalated. The randomised groups of interest from these studies comprised 4255 patients enrolled between April, 2000, and January, 2016. Baseline probability estimates and utilities were derived from the included trials in addition to a systematic review of published studies. A Canadian public health payer's perspective was considered (CAN$1=US$0·74) and adjusted for inflation for 2018. All costs and benefits were discounted by 1·5% per year because life-years now are more valuable than future potential life-years. FINDINGS: Probabilistic analyses (10 000 simulations) showed that, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50 000, a PET-adapted de-escalation strategy based on AHL2011 was more cost-effective 87% of the time. This strategy had the highest number of life-years (14·6 years [95% CI 13·7-15·1]) and quality-adjusted life years (13·2 years [95% CI 10·2-14·4]), and the lowest direct costs ($53 129 [95% CI 31 914-94 446]) compared with the other treatment regimens. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to key variables, including probability of treatment-related mortality, relapse, frequency of secondary malignancy, death from secondary malignancy, and probability of infertility after BEACOPP. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that, when considering cost, effectiveness, and short and long-term toxicities, the preferred treatment strategy for patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma is the PET-adapted de-escalation regimen starting with BEACOPP and de-escalating to ABVD as appropriate. Although our findings do not provide an absolute best treatment approach for clinicians to follow for all patients, they can contribute to shared decision making between patients and treating physicians. FUNDING: None.

An evaluation of brentuximab vedotin as a treatment option for stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma.

Introduction: Outcomes of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma are excellent, and the intent of frontline therapy for even advanced-stage disease has been curative. This review summarizes the role of brentuximab vedotin in the upfront treatment of advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the context of reducing therapy-related toxicity without compromising the high cure rate. Areas covered: Strategies to reduce bleomycin-induced lung toxicity include a response-adapted approach investigated in the RATHL study and a replacement of bleomycin with brentuximab vedotin in frontline chemotherapy regimens. In both studies, omission of bleomycin in the non-standard arms decreased the rate of pulmonary toxicity while maintaining high progression-free survival and overall survival rates. Expert opinion: The approval of A+AVD in North America offers a new bleomycin-free regimen for the treatment of advanced-stage HL, but it must be balanced against a risk-adapted approach. Recently presented subset analyses raise a question about which patients benefit most from this therapy.

Target therapy versus dacarbazine in first-line treatment of advanced non-surgical and metastatic melanoma: budget impact analysis from the perspective of the Brazilian National Health System, 2018-2020. / Terapia-alvo versus dacarbazina no tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não cirúrgico e metastático: análise de impacto orçamentário na perspectiva do Sistema Único de Saúde, 2018-2020.

OBJECTIVE: to estimate the incremental budget impact of target therapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-surgical and metastatic melanoma compared to dacarbazine treatment. METHODS: budget impact analysis, from the Brazilian National Health System (SUS) perspective; based on demographic data and incidence estimates, the population over a three-year time horizon (2018-2020) was delimited and the direct medical costs were estimated; the reference scenario was treatment with dacarbazine, and the alternative scenarios were target therapy with vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib + cobimetinib and dabrafenib + trametinib; uncertainty assessment was conducted through scenario analysis. RESULTS: the incremental budget impact ranged from R$ 451,867,881.00 to R$ 768,860,968.00, representing 0.70 to 1.53% of total SUS annual outpatient drugs expenditure; in best and worst scenario, results ranged from R$ 289,160,835.00 to R$ 1,107,081,926.00. CONCLUSION: the use of target therapy compared to dacarbazine implies an excessive impact on the budget, this bring unfovorable to its possible incorporation.

Application of pharmacoeconomics to formulary management in a health system setting.

PURPOSE: A novel value-based approach to evaluate costly specialty drugs for formulary addition was developed. SUMMARY: In February 2016, Stanford Health Care launched the specialty drug subcommittee (SDSC), a subcommittee of the pharmacy and therapeutics committee, responsible for the formulary review of specialty pharmaceuticals. A process was developed for value-based review that includes not only consideration of clinical trial data and institutional acquisition costs but also internal patient outcomes and a cost-effectiveness model using internal financial data. A Markov model was developed to assess the value of trabectedin, which was approved for formulary addition in April 2016, relative to the addition of dacarbazine. The economic model and internal patient outcome analysis were presented to the prescribing oncologist and the SDSC for review. Internal data revealed that fewer patients than had been estimated received trabectedin, with outcomes significantly worse than those observed in the clinical trial leading to Food and Drug Administration approval. In the cost-effectiveness model, trabectedin had higher costs and poorer outcomes compared with dacarbazine. Based on the economic model, low utilization, and real-world outcomes, trabectedin was removed from formulary and a restrictive treatment pathway for nonformulary use, developed by the primary prescriber, was implemented. This process has since been applied to 11 more specialty drugs. CONCLUSION: Internal cost-effectiveness models in combination with real-world patient outcomes data can be effective formulary management tools. Engagement and collaboration with the requesting provider are key to developing thoughtful treatment pathways.

Custo-utilidade de terapias-alvo comparadas à dacarbazina para o tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não-cirúrgico e metastático no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of isolated and combined targeted therapy regimens compared to dacarbazine for first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (no progression, progression and death), monthly duration cycle and 10-year time horizon was constructed to compare targeted therapy regimens (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and dabrafenib/trametinib) with dacarbazine chemotherapy under the Brazilian public health perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean cost was R$5662.50 ($1490.13) for dacarbazine, R$175 937.18 (46 299.26) for vemurafenib, R$167 461.70 ($44 068.87) for dabrafenib, R$425 901 ($112 079.21) for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and R$411 799.81 ($108 368.37) for dabrafenib/trametinib, whereas QALY was 0.91 for dacarbazine, 1.08 for vemurafenib, 1.12 for dabrafenib, 1.64 for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and 1.56 for dabrafenib/trametinib. The ICUR was estimated from R$572 165.76 ($150 569.94) to R$1 012 524.56 ($266 453.83) per patient, and the most impactful parameters were risk of progression and death, and treatment cost. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of targeted therapies in the Brazilian public health system would produce an additional expenditure of at least 19 times the national GDP per capita to increase in one year the quality-adjusted survival of each patient with advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

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.

The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was the first programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate long-term survival benefit in a clinical trial setting for advanced melanoma patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus ipilimumab and dacarbazine for BRAF mutation-negative patients and versus ipilimumab, dabrafenib, and vemurafenib for BRAF mutation-positive patients. Covariate-adjusted parametric curves for time to progression, pre-progression survival, and post-progression survival were fitted based on patient-level data from two trials and long-term ipilimumab survival data. Indirect treatment comparisons between nivolumab, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine were informed by these covariate-adjusted parametric curves, controlling for differences in patient characteristics. Kaplan-Meier data from the literature were digitised and used to fit progression-free and overall survival curves for dabrafenib and vemurafenib. Patient utilities and resource use data were based on trial data or the literature. Patients are assumed to receive nivolumab until there is no further clinical benefit, assumed to be the first of progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or 2 years of treatment. RESULTS: Nivolumab is the most cost-effective treatment option in BRAF mutation-negative and mutation-positive patients, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £24,483 and £17,362 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The model results are most sensitive to assumptions regarding treatment duration for nivolumab and the parameters of the fitted parametric survival curves. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment for advanced melanoma patients in England.

Clinical and economic evaluation of modulated electrohyperthermia concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide 21/28 days regimen in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a retrospective analysis of a two-centre German cohort trial with systematic comparison and effect-to-treatment analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of modulated electrohyperthermia (mEHT) concurrent to dose-dense temozolomide (ddTMZ) 21/28 days regimen versus ddTMZ 21/28 days alone in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). DESIGN: A cohort of 54 patients with recurrent GBM treated with ddTMZ+mEHT in 2000-2005 was systematically retrospectively compared with five pooled ddTMZ 21/28 days cohorts (114 patients) enrolled in 2008-2013. RESULTS: The ddTMZ+mEHT cohort had a not significantly improved mean survival time (mST) versus the comparator (p=0.531) after a significantly less mean number of cycles (1.56 vs 3.98, p<0.001). Effect-to-treatment analysis (ETA) suggests that mEHT significantly enhances the efficacy of the ddTMZ 21/28 days regimen (p=0.011), with significantly less toxicity (no grade III-IV toxicity vs 45%-92%, p<0.0001). An estimated maximal attainable median survival time is 10.10 months (9.10-11.10). Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, unlike ddTMZ 21/28 days alone, ddTMZ+mEHT is cost-effective versus the applicable cost-effectiveness thresholds €US$25 000-50 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Budget impact analysis suggests a significant saving of €8 577 947/$11 201 761 with 29.1-38.5 QALY gained per 1000 patients per year. Cost-benefit analysis suggests that mEHT is profitable and will generate revenues between €3 124 574 and $6 458 400, with a total economic effect (saving+revenues) of €5 700 034 to $8 237 432 per mEHT device over an 8-year period. CONCLUSIONS: Our ETA suggests that mEHT significantly improves survival of patients receiving the ddTMZ 21/28 days regimen. Economic evaluation suggests that ddTMZ+mEHT is cost-effective, budget-saving and profitable. After confirmation of the results, mEHT could be recommended for the treatment of recurrent GBM as a cost-effective enhancer of ddTMZ regimens, and, probably, of the regular 5/28 days regimen. mEHT is applicable also as a single treatment if chemotherapy is impossible, and as a salvage treatment after the failure of chemotherapy.

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.

Modelling Comparative Efficacy of Drugs with Different Survival Profiles: Ipilimumab, Vemurafenib and Dacarbazine in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head data, a common method for modelling comparative survival for cost-effectiveness analysis is estimating hazard ratios from trial publications. This assumes that the hazards of mortality are proportional between treatments and that outcomes are not polluted by subsequent therapy use. Newer techniques that compare treatments where the proportional hazards assumption is violated and adjust for use of subsequent therapies often require patient-level data, which are rarely available for all treatments. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide a comparison of overall survival data for ipilimumab, vemurafenib and dacarbazine using data from three trials lacking a common comparator arm and confounded by the use of subsequent treatment. METHODS: We compared three estimated overall survival curves for vemurafenib and the difference compared to ipilimumab and dacarbazine. We performed a naïve comparison and adjusted it for heterogeneity between the ipilimumab and vemurafenib trials, including differences in prognostic characteristics and subsequent therapy using a published hazard function for the impact of prognostic characteristics in melanoma and trial data on the impact of second-line use of ipilimumab. RESULTS: The mean incremental life-years gained for patients receiving ipilimumab compared with vemurafenib were 0.34 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.24 to 0.84) using the naïve comparison and 0.51 (95 % CI -0.08 to 0.99) using the covariate-adjusted survival curve. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses estimated the comparative efficacy of ipilimumab and vemurafenib in the absence of head-to-head patient-level data for all trials and proportional hazards in overall survival.

Ipilimumab for Previously Untreated Unresectable Malignant Melanoma: A Critique of the Evidence.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ipilimumab (Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for previously untreated advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents a summary of the manufacturer's submission of ipilimumab, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA319, issued in July 2014. Ipilimumab at a recommended dose of 3 mg/kg monotherapy was previously granted marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency in adult patients who had received prior therapy and was recommended by NICE in guidance TA268. In October 2013, the EMA approved the extension of this indication to previously untreated advanced melanoma patients. NICE decisions are bound by the marketing authorisation; therefore, the decision problem faced by the NICE Appraisal Committee was whether ipilimumab at a recommended dose of 3 mg/kg monotherapy was effective and cost effective compared with first-line standard of care involving dacarbazine (DTIC) and vemurafenib (for BRAF V600 mutation-positive patients). The CA184-024 trial was the primary source of clinical evidence for ipilimumab. However, this was based on a dose of 10 mg/kg with concomitant DTIC. The results over a 5-year period indicated that ipilimumab 10 mg/kg plus DTIC demonstrated a significant increase in median overall survival (OS) of 2.1 months compared with DTIC plus placebo (11.2 vs. 9.1 months). The BRIM-3 trial, which was an open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) in BRAF V600 mutation-positive patients, was the primary source of evidence for an indirect comparison with vemurafenib. The results showed that vemurafenib increased median OS by 3.6 months compared with DTIC (13.2 vs. 9.6 months). The economic evaluation compared the costs and outcomes of ipilimumab by assuming that the 3 mg/kg dosing regimen was clinically equivalent in efficacy to an ipilimumab 10 mg/kg dosing regimen plus DTIC and by using a treatment sequencing approach that incorporated second-line active therapy and third-line best supportive care (BSC). In the first appraisal meeting, the committee recommended ipilimumab only in the context of research as part of a clinical study. This was primarily based on the lack of robust evidence to support the assumption of clinical equivalence between dosages and the absence of evidence available to inform the sequential use of treatments. Following the consultation, the manufacturer submitted additional analyses and evidence to support the cost effectiveness of ipilimumab at first line. The manufacturer's response was based on concerns relating to uncertainty surrounding the relative efficacy of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy compared with DTIC and vemurafenib, comparability of the patient populations at first and second line, and the effects of concomitant DTIC. These additional analyses indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £ 47,900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ipilimumab compared with DTIC and £ 28,600 per QALY gained for ipilimumab compared with vemurafenib. Following consideration of the additional evidence and the responses from a large number of consultees and commentators, the committee recommended ipilimumab as an option for adults with previously untreated advanced melanoma.

Economic Evaluation of Bevacizumab for the First-Line Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme.

PURPOSE: The Avastin in Glioblastoma trial has shown that patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treated with bevacizumab plus radiotherapy and temozolomide versus radiotherapy and temozolomide alone showed improvement in progression-free survival, possibly leading to a new indication for first-line use of bevacizumab in GBM. The cost-utility of this new intervention remains unknown; therefore, we developed a Markov model estimating the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) from a Canadian public payer perspective. METHODS: We incorporated trial data for state transitions and treatment effects from the Avastin in Glioblastoma trial, costs and resource use data from Canadian published studies and databases, and utility parameters from published literature. We addressed uncertainty through one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, extended the model to lifetime horizon and by another arm to compare first-line versus second-line use of bevacizumab on progression, performed value of information analysis, and performed US costing sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Adding bevacizumab to radiotherapy and temozolomide resulted in increases of 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and $80,000 per patient over 2-year time horizon at the base case analysis. The ICUR was $607,966/QALY (95% CI, $305,000/QALY to $2,550,000/QALY), with 0% chance of being cost effective at the $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and never going below $450,000/QALY in the one-way sensitivity analysis. The ICUR using the US costing data was $787,519/QALY. The lifetime ICUR was $439,764/QALY (95% CI, $235,000/QALY to $1,520,000/QALY), never going below $350,000/QALY in the sensitivity analysis. Second-line use of bevacizumab on progression is more effective and less expensive than its first-line use. Value of information analysis revealed that future research is unwarranted. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab has only limited effectiveness and is therefore not likely to be cost effective in treating adult patients with newly diagnosed GBM.

Comparative healthcare costs in patients with metastatic melanoma in the USA.

Recent advances have increased treatment options for, and improved clinical outcomes in, metastatic melanoma (mM). Using a large claims database, this retrospective study compared healthcare and adverse event (AE) costs in a US managed care population of mM patients initiating vemurafenib (VEM), ipilimumab (IPI), dacarbazine (DTIC), paclitaxel (PAC), or temozolomide (TMZ) from July 2009 to September 2012. Treatment episodes were identified from the start of study drugs (index date) to a switch to a different study drug, or a gap greater than 45 days (>112 days for IPI). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurring ≥5% from study drug package inserts were selected for this analysis. All-cause costs for treatment episodes and AEs were normalized as monthly costs. Generalized estimating equation models with log link and gamma distribution provided adjusted monthly treatment episode and AE costs. A total of 809 treatment episodes were identified in 541 mM patients, with a mean (SD) age of 57.5 (11.5) years. The total mean (SD) all-cause cost per treatment episode for VEM was $77 687 ($60 329), for IPI was $153 062 ($134 048), for DTIC was $35 243 ($33 641), for TMZ was $42 870 ($41 384), and for PAC was $58 991 ($81 306). The adjusted mean monthly treatment episode cost for VEM was significantly lower than that for IPI and comparable to that for other drugs. VEM had a significantly lower monthly AE cost than IPI, DTIC, and PAC. In combination with safety and efficacy findings, these results may assist clinicians, patients, policy makers, and payers in the treatment of mM.

Clinical observation of three dimensional conformal radiotherapy with tamoxifen in treatment of postoperative malignant glioma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with tamoxifen in treating patients with postoperative malignant glioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 60 patients of postoperative malignant glioma were randomly assigned into two groups, 30 patients were treated with 3D-CRT plus tamoxifen (treatment group), and the other 30 patients with 3D-CRT plus temozolomide (control group). All patients were radiated by 6MV X-ray, 2.0 Gy per fraction, once daily, with a total dose (DT) of 56~60 Gy. Tamoxifen was delivered at 60 mg /m2/d, temozolomide was given at 75 mg/m2/d. All patients were treated with concurrent radiotherapy. RESULTS: One, 2, 3 year survival rates of treatment and control group were 63.3%, 30.0%, 23.0% and 70.0%, 33.3%, 26.7%, respectively (χ2=0.01, 0.23, 0.09, P>0.05). The rate of thromboembolism in treatment group was 6.7%. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic efficacy of two groups was similar, but it was more cost- effective in treatment group, and toxicity did not increase.

Economics of Malignant Gliomas: A Critical Review.

PURPOSE: Approximately 18,500 persons are diagnosed with malignant glioma in the United States annually. Few studies have investigated the comprehensive economic costs. We reviewed the literature to examine costs to patients with malignant glioma and their families, payers, and society. METHODS: A total of 18 fully extracted studies were included. Data were collected on direct and indirect costs, and cost estimates were converted to US dollars using the conversion rate calculated from the study's publication date, and updated to 2011 values after adjustment for inflation. A standardized data abstraction form was used. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: Before approval of effective chemotherapeutic agents for malignant gliomas, estimated total direct medical costs in the United States for surgery and radiation therapy per patient ranged from $50,600 to $92,700. The addition of temozolomide (TMZ) and bevacizumab to glioblastoma treatment regimens has resulted in increased overall costs for glioma care. Although health care costs are now less front-loaded, they have increased over the course of illness. Analysis using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year suggests that the benefits of TMZ fall on the edge of acceptable therapies. Furthermore, indirect medical costs, such as productivity losses, are not trivial. CONCLUSION: With increased chemotherapy use for malignant glioma, the paradigm for treatment and associated out-of-pocket and total medical costs continue to evolve. Larger out-of-pocket costs may influence the choice of chemotherapeutic agents, the economic implications of which should be evaluated prospectively.

Management of glioblastoma: comparison of clinical practices and cost-effectiveness in two cohorts of patients (2008 versus 2004) diagnosed in a French university hospital.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic options for the management of glioblastoma (GBM) have greatly evolved over the last decade with the emergence of new regimens combining radiotherapy plus temozolomide and the use of bevacizumab at recurrence. Our aim was to assess the clinical and economic impacts of those novel strategies in our center. METHODS: A single-center retrospective chart review was conducted on patients newly diagnosed with a GBM over two periods (year 2004, group 1 or year 2008, group 2) with limitations to those eligible to radiotherapy after initial diagnosis. The type of medical management was described and compared, as well as overall survival and total costs from diagnosis to death or the last follow-up date. Cost analysis was performed under the French Sickness Fund perspective using tariffs from 2012. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients were selected (49 in group 1 and 73 in group 2) with similar baseline characteristics within the two groups. Patients from group 2 received more frequently temozolomide radiochemotherapy (71% vs. 39%, P < 0·05) as first-line treatment as well as bevacizumab regimen at recurrence (48% vs. 6%, P < 0·05); the median overall survival was increased between the two periods (respectively 17 vs. 10 months, P < 0·05). The mean total cost per patient was 54,388 € in group 1 and 71,148 € in group 2 (P < 0·05). Hospital care represented the largest expenditure (76% and 58% in groups 1 and 2 respectively) followed by chemotherapy drugs costs (11% and 30% respectively). The total cost difference between the two groups was explained by the increasing use of temozolomide and bevacizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 54,355 € per life-year gained. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: As far as we know, this is the first study reporting the total cost of GBM management based on the French perspective, as well as the cost-effectiveness of clinical practices in term of cost per life-year gained. Those novel strategies have contributed to improve overall survival while inducing a substantial, but acceptable, increase of total costs.

A review of the economic burden of glioblastoma and the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments.

Grade IV glioma (glioblastoma) is one of the most common brain/central nervous system cancers. In 2005, the standard of care for adjuvant treatment was significantly changed with the approval of temozolomide. Carmustine wafers have also gained some popularity. Phase III trials are currently evaluating bevacizumab in conjunction with the standard temozolomide regimen. Despite these recent advances in pharmacotherapy, roughly two-thirds of patients do not survive longer than 2 years after diagnosis. Meanwhile, the costs of treatment are substantial. The goal of this study is to review the clinical, cost-of-illness, and cost-effectiveness literature relevant to treating glioblastoma. Estimates of the economic burden of glioblastoma within different healthcare systems were converted to 2013 US dollars. Temozolomide has demonstrated a 2.5-month increase in overall survival and a 1.9-month increase in progression-free survival, relative to radiotherapy alone. Carmustine wafers have also been shown to increase overall survival by 2.3 months, compared with placebo wafers. Cost-effectiveness studies of temozolomide have produced incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, adjusted to 2013 US dollars, with a range from US$73,586 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (UK National Health Service perspective) to US$105,234 per QALY (US societal perspective). More research is needed to quantify the full societal burden of illness.

Should we continue temozolomide beyond six cycles in the adjuvant treatment of glioblastoma without an evidence of clinical benefit? A cost analysis based on prescribing patterns in Spain

PURPOSE: The standard adjuvant treatment for glioblastoma is temozolomide concomitant with radiotherapy, followed by a further six cycles of temozolomide. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence and international consensus regarding the optimal duration of temozolomide treatment, it is often extended to 12 or more cycles, even in the absence of residual disease. No clinical trial has shown clear evidence of clinical benefit of this extended treatment. We have explored the economic impact of this practice in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spanish neuro-oncologists completed a questionnaire on the clinical management of glioblastomas in their centers. Based on their responses and on available clinical and demographic data, we estimated the number of patients who receive more than six cycles of temozolomide and calculated the cost of this extended treatment. RESULTS: Temozolomide treatment is continued for more than six cycles by 80.5 % of neuro-oncologists: 44.4 % only if there is residual disease; 27.8 % for 12 cycles even in the absence of residual disease; and 8.3 % until progression. Thus, 292 patients annually will continue treatment beyond six cycles in spite of a lack of clear evidence of clinical benefit. Temozolomide is covered by the National Health Insurance System, and the additional economic burden to society of this extended treatment is nearly 1.5 million euros a year. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal duration of adjuvant temozolomide treatment merits investigation in a clinical trial due to the economic consequences of prolonged treatment without evidence of greater patient benefit (AU)

No disponible

Should we continue temozolomide beyond six cycles in the adjuvant treatment of glioblastoma without an evidence of clinical benefit? A cost analysis based on prescribing patterns in Spain.

PURPOSE: The standard adjuvant treatment for glioblastoma is temozolomide concomitant with radiotherapy, followed by a further six cycles of temozolomide. However, due to the lack of empirical evidence and international consensus regarding the optimal duration of temozolomide treatment, it is often extended to 12 or more cycles, even in the absence of residual disease. No clinical trial has shown clear evidence of clinical benefit of this extended treatment. We have explored the economic impact of this practice in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Spanish neuro-oncologists completed a questionnaire on the clinical management of glioblastomas in their centers. Based on their responses and on available clinical and demographic data, we estimated the number of patients who receive more than six cycles of temozolomide and calculated the cost of this extended treatment. RESULTS: Temozolomide treatment is continued for more than six cycles by 80.5 % of neuro-oncologists: 44.4 % only if there is residual disease; 27.8 % for 12 cycles even in the absence of residual disease; and 8.3 % until progression. Thus, 292 patients annually will continue treatment beyond six cycles in spite of a lack of clear evidence of clinical benefit. Temozolomide is covered by the National Health Insurance System, and the additional economic burden to society of this extended treatment is nearly 1.5 million euros a year. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal duration of adjuvant temozolomide treatment merits investigation in a clinical trial due to the economic consequences of prolonged treatment without evidence of greater patient benefit.