Quality management of cutaneous melanoma: impact on short-term outcomes and costs.

Promoting standardization and quality assurance (QA) may guarantee better outcomes for patients and ensure a better allocation of healthcare system resources. The present study tested the association between process quality indicators of the clinical pathway for melanoma and both patient short-term mortality and budget utilization. Specific indicators were selected to assess quality of processes in different phases of the pathway as well as the pathway as a whole. Cox regression models were run for each phase to test the association between adherence to the quality indicator and overall mortality. A Tobit regression analysis was used to identify any association between adherence to the quality indicators and total costs over the two years after melanoma was diagnosed. This retrospective cohort study concerned 1,222 incident cases of melanoma in the Veneto Region (north-east of Italy). Adherence to the clinical pathway as a whole was associated with a significant decrease in risk of death (HR= 0.40; 95% CI: 0,19 -0,77). Adherence to quality processes in the diagnostic phase (HR= 0.55 95% CI: 0.31- 0.95) and surgical phase (HR= 0.33 95% CI: 0.16- 0.61) significantly reduced the hazard risk. Tobit regression revealed a significant increase in overall costs for patients who adhered to the whole pathway in comparison with those who did not (ß= 2,393.24; p= 0.013). This study suggests that adherence to the quality of management of clinical pathways modifies short-term survival as well as mean cost of care for patients with cutaneous melanoma. Physicians should be encouraged to improve their compliance with clinical care pathways for their melanoma patients, and steadily growing associated costs emphasize the need for policy makers to invest exclusively in treatments of proven efficacy.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma.

Importance: In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved. Results: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

Out-of-pocket medical expenses compared across five years for patients with one of five common cancers in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Patient medical out-of-pocket expenses are thought to be rising worldwide yet data describing trends over time is scant. We evaluated trends of out-of-pocket expenses for patients in Australia with one of five major cancers in the first-year after diagnosis. METHODS: Participants from the QSKIN Sun and Health prospective cohort Study with a histologically confirmed breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were included (n = 1965). Medicare claims data on out-of-pocket expenses were analysed using a two-part model adjusted for year of diagnosis, health insurance status, age and education level. Fisher price and quantity indexes were also calculated to assess prices and volumes separately. RESULTS: On average, patients with cancer diagnosed in 2015 spent 70% more out-of-pocket on direct medical expenses than those diagnosed in 2011. Out-of-pocket expenses increased significantly for patients with breast cancer (mean AU$2513 in 2011 to AU$6802 in 2015). Out-of-pocket expenses were higher overall for individuals with private health insurance. For prostate cancer, expenses increased for those without private health insurance over time (mean AU$1586 in 2011 to AU$4748 in 2014) and remained stable for those with private health insurance (AU$4397 in 2011 to AU$5623 in 2015). There were progressive increases in prices and quantities of medical services for patients with melanoma, breast and lung cancer. For all cancers, prices increased for medicines and doctor attendances but fluctuated for other medical services. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket expenses for patients with cancer have increased substantially over time. Such increases were more pronounced for women with breast cancer and those without private health insurance. Increased out-of-pocket expenses arose from both higher prices and higher volumes of health services but differ by cancer type. Further efforts to monitor patient out-of-pocket costs and prevent health inequities are required.

Real-world healthcare costs of localized and regionally advanced cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands.

The aim of this study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients initially diagnosed with localized or regionally advanced melanoma in three Dutch hospitals between 2003 and 2011. Patients were stratified according to their stage at diagnosis and recurrence status. Costs were calculated by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use and reported for the full disease course, the initial treatment episode, and treatment episodes for disease recurrence (stratified by type of recurrence). We included 198 patients with localized melanoma and 98 patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Total costs were much higher for patients with disease recurrence than for patients without disease recurrence: €20 007 versus €3032 for patients with localized melanoma and €19 519 versus €5951 for patients with regionally advanced melanoma. This was owing to the costs of disease recurrence because the costs of the initial treatment were comparable between patients with and without disease recurrence. Costs of disease recurrence were dependent on the type of recurrence: €4414, €4604, €8129 and €10 393 for a local recurrence, intralymphatic metastases, regional lymph node metastases and distant metastases, respectively. In conclusion, healthcare costs of patients with localized and regionally advanced melanoma were rather low for the initial treatment. Costs became, however, more substantial in case of disease recurrence. In the context of a rapidly changing treatment paradigm, it remains crucial to monitor treatment outcomes as well as healthcare expenditures.

Unemployment and Health-Related Quality of Life in Melanoma Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) ineluctably caused social distancing and unemployment, which may bring additional health risks for patients with cancer. To investigate the association of the pandemic-related impacts with the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with melanoma during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a cross-sectional study among Chinese patients with melanoma. A self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to melanoma patients through social media. Demographic and clinical data, and pandemic-related impacts (unemployment and income loss) were collected. HRQoL was determined by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and its disease-specific module (the melanoma subscale, MS). A total of 135 patients with melanoma completed the study. The mean age of the patients was 55.8 ± 14.2 years, 48.1% (65/135) were male, and 17.04% (34/135) were unemployed since the epidemic. Unemployment of the patients and their family members and income loss were significantly associated with a lower FACT-G score, while the MS score was associated with the unemployment of the patients' family members. Our findings suggested that unemployment is associated with impaired HRQoL in melanoma patients during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Epidemiology of Melanoma.

Please add expansion for AL. Melanoma is the most common fatal type of skin cancer and is an important and growing public health problem in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. The mortality rate in most of the world has been rising as well, albeit slower than that for incidence. Likely due to the availability of new treatments for stage 4 melanoma, mortality rates in the United States dropped 18% from 2013 to 2016. We further describe trends in melanoma incidence and mortality, review the literature on risk factors, and provide an up-to-date assessment of population-wide screening and some of the inherent concerns.

Association of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion with the diagnosis and treatment of clinically localized melanoma: A National Cancer Database study.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion is associated with earlier diagnosis and improved care among lower socioeconomic status populations with cancer, but its impact on melanoma is undefined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of Medicaid expansion with stage of diagnosis and use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in nonelderly adult patients with newly diagnosed clinically localized melanoma. METHODS: Quasi-experimental, difference-in-differences retrospective cohort analysis using data from the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2017. Patients from expansion versus nonexpansion states and diagnosed before (2010-2013) versus after (2014-2017) expansion were identified. RESULTS: Of 83,322 patients, 46.6% were female, and the median age was 55 years (interquartile range, 49-60). After risk adjustment, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in the diagnosis of T1b stage or higher melanoma (odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.98; P = .011) and decrease in uninsured status (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52-0.72; P < .001) but was not associated with a difference in sentinel lymph node biopsy performance when indicated (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.20; P = .29). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study using a national database. CONCLUSION: In this study of patients with clinically localized melanoma, Medicaid expansion was associated with a decrease in the diagnosis of later T-stage tumors.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is associated with increased cost in higher risk thin melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) be discussed with patients with thin melanoma at higher risk for lymph node metastasis (T1b or T1a with positive deep margins, lymphovascular invasion, or high mitotic index). We examined the association between SLNB and resource utilization in this cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients that underwent wide local excision for higher risk thin melanomas from 2009 to 2018 at a tertiary care center. Patients who underwent SLNB were compared to those who did not undergo SLNB with regard to resource utilization, including total hospital cost. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the analysis and 50 patients (71.4%) underwent SLNB. SLNB was associated with increased hospital costs ($6700 vs. $3767; p < .01) and increased operative time (68.5 vs. 36.0 min; p < .01). This cost difference persisted in multivariable regression (p < .01). Of patients who underwent successful SLN mapping, 3 out of 49 patients had a positive SLN (6.1%). The cost to identify a single positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) was $47,906. CONCLUSION: In patients with a higher risk of thin melanoma, SLNB is associated with increased cost despite a low likelihood of SLN positivity. These data better inform patient-provider discussions as the role of SLNB in thin melanoma evolves.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor use, multimorbidity and healthcare expenditures among older adults with late-stage melanoma.

Background: The objective of this study is to assess the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and multimorbidity on healthcare expenditures among older patients with late-stage melanoma. Materials & methods: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results linked with Medicare claims was conducted. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze adjusted relationships of ICI, multimorbidity and ICI-multimorbidity interaction on average healthcare expenditures. Results: Patients who received ICI and those who had multimorbidity had significantly higher average total healthcare expenditures compared with ICI nonusers and no multimorbidity. In the fully adjusted model using ICI-multimorbidity interaction, no excess cost was added by multimorbidity. Conclusion: Use of ICIs, regardless of multimorbidity, is associated with increased healthcare expenditures.

A real-world data approach to determine the optimal dosing strategy for pembrolizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer drug therapy costs continue to rise and threaten the sustainability of Canada's public healthcare system. Previous studies have calculated potential savings utilizing different dosing regimens of cancer treatments. Our objectives were to determine the financial impact of drug wastage and to explore cost-effective dosing regimens for pembrolizumab. METHODS: This was a retrospective study reviewing data for non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma patients at all six BC Cancer Regional Centres during fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Pembrolizumab waste amounts recorded in pharmacy wastage logs were totalled. Estimates of the number of vials used were compared between vial sharing and non-vial sharing practices to determine the cost differences. Costs for dosing regimens used during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 were compared to 2 mg/kg weight-based dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg), 2 mg/kg dosing rounding down within 5% and 10%, and flat dosing of 200 mg. RESULTS: There were a total of 202 non-small cell lung cancer and 182 melanoma patients with 2948 doses dispensed. Documented wastage was valued at $1,829,047.44 (8.65%) and across all six centres, vial sharing could reduce costs by $3,207,600.00 using the 100 mg vials. Compared to fiscal years 2017 and 2018, 2 mg/kg dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg) was the most cost-effective, decreasing costs by $222,719.20; flat dosing of 200 mg was the most expensive, increasing costs by $6,625,260.40. CONCLUSIONS: Having smaller vial sizes, practicing vial sharing, and using weight-based dosing all improve cost savings. Further investigations on the allocation of resources to optimize drug use and minimize wastage are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced melanoma: a drug review.

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitors, including nivolumab, and targeted agents have dramatically improved the outcome for patients with unresectable advanced melanoma. Areas covered: This is a narrative review of the published evidence on nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. Expert opinion: In ipilimumab pre-treated patients (CheckMate 037), nivolumab was associated with a higher response rate and a longer duration of response when compared to chemotherapy. In previously untreated patients, nivolumab improves survival when compared to chemotherapy (CheckMate 066) or to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab also improves survival when compared to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). CheckMate 067 was not designed to compare the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination to nivolumab alone. A modified regimen using a lower dose of ipilimumab in combination with standard dose nivolumab is better tolerated than nivolumab in combination with standard dose ipilimumab (CheckMate 511). In patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab improve survival when compared to ipilimumab. Nivolumab is equally active in BRAF mutated and BRAF wild type melanoma. The optimal sequence of checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutated patients has not been established.

Early Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Electrochemotherapy as a Prospect Treatment Modality for Skin Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Electrochemotherapy is increasingly entering into national and international guidelines, requiring formal evaluation of treatment costs and cost-effectiveness to ensure that its uptake provides value to budget-constrained health care systems. This study analyzed the early cost-effectiveness of electrochemotherapy in patients with Stage IIIc/IV skin melanoma in clinical practice in Slovenia. The costs of electrochemotherapy were compared to those of the standard of care, consisting of palliative treatment and therapy for symptoms. METHODS: wThe study enrolled 23 patients treated with electrochemotherapy at the Institute of Oncology (Ljubljana, Slovenia). The mean cost of electrochemotherapy was estimated using patient-specific cost data on electrochemotherapy procedures and subsequent follow-up. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by collecting EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at baseline, after complete or partial response following the treatment, and after a relapse of skin lesions. A discrete-time Markov model was built to estimate the lifetime costs and consequences of using electrochemotherapy compared to standard of care, from the perspective of the Slovenian health care system. The analysis was conducted separately in the whole patient sample and in the subset of patients with bleeding lesions. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model assumptions and to characterize the uncertainty around model parameters. FINDINGS: In the whole patient population, electrochemotherapy for skin melanoma Stage IIIc/IV was expected to increase QALYs by 0.29 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.10-0.50), at the higher cost of 6568 EUR (95% CrI, 4593-8928) in comparison to the standard of care. At the cost-effectiveness threshold of 20,000 EUR/QALY, the estimated probabilities of electrochemotherapy being cost-effective compared to standard of care were 0.30 and 0.91 in the whole patient sample and in patients with bleeding lesions, respectively. In the whole sample population, a 50% reduction in the price of the electrodes was expected to increase the probability of electrochemotherapy being cost-effective from 0.30 to ~0.64. IMPLICATIONS: The findings from this cost-effectiveness analysis of data from clinical practice were based on a small sample size (ie, 23 patents), which made the subgroup of patients with bleeding lesions very small. Therefore, the findings in this patient population should be carefully interpreted.

The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study randomised controlled trial: statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study is a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, stratified by traditional risk group (low or high phenotypic risk) in the general population. The primary outcome is objectively measured total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include UV exposure at specific time periods, self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. OBJECTIVE: To publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database lock and the start of analysis. METHODS: This SAP describes the data synthesis, analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing the outcomes from this trial. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid potential analysis bias that may arise from knowledge of the outcome data. RESULTS: This SAP is consistent with best practice and should enable transparent reporting. CONCLUSION: This SAP has been developed for the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study and will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity and to minimise analysis bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTR N12617000691347 . Registered on 15 May 2017.

Differences in direct costs of patients with stage I cutaneous melanoma: A real-world data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical factors, such as tumor thickness, ulceration and growth phase have a role as prognostic factors for stage I melanoma. However, it is still under debate whether these variables influence the related direct costs. We aimed to investigate which clinical factors represent direct health care "cost drivers" for stage I melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Analyses were conducted on a cohort of patients diagnosed with stage I melanoma. Differences in the costs incurred by different groups of patients were examined using Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests. Log linear multivariate analysis was used to identify the clinical drivers of the total direct costs one and two years after diagnosis. The study was conducted from the perspective of Italy's National Health care System. RESULTS: One year after diagnosis, patients whose melanomas had a Breslow thickness ≥0.8 mmin (compared with those with lower thickness) and a vertical growth phase (compared with those with radial growth) incurred higher costs for hospitalization, as well as higher overall costs. One year after their diagnosis, treatment of patients with stage I melanoma in the vertical growth phase costs 50% more (95% CI: 22-85%) than their counterparts with a radial growth pattern, resulting in an estimated absolute increase of € 256.23. Having a tumor thicker than 0.8 mm prompted an increase of 91% (95% CI: 43-155%) in the costs (€955.24 in absolute terms). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate a heterogeneity in the direct costs of stage I melanoma patients during the first year after diagnosis, which can be partly explained by clinical prognostic factors, like tumor thickness and growth pattern.

Association of Indoor Tanning Regulations With Health and Economic Outcomes in North America and Europe.

Importance: UV radiation emissions from indoor tanning devices are carcinogenic. Regulatory actions may be associated with reduced exposure of UV radiation at a population level. Objective: To estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of banning indoor tanning devices or prohibiting their use by minors only in North America and Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic analysis modeled data for individuals 12 to 35 years old in North America and Europe, who commonly engage in indoor tanning. A Markov cohort model was used with outcomes projected during the cohort's remaining life-years. Models were populated by extracting data from high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses, epidemiologic reports, and cancer registrations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were numbers of melanomas and deaths from melanoma, numbers of keratinocyte carcinomas, life-years, and health care and productivity costs. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of results. Results: In an estimated population of 110 932 523 in the United States and Canada and 141 970 492 in Europe, for the next generation of youths and young adults during their remaining lifespans, regulatory actions that ban indoor tanning devices could be expected to gain 423 000 life-years, avert 240 000 melanomas (-8.2%), and avert 7.3 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-7.8%) in North America and gain 460 000 life-years, avert 204 000 melanomas (-4.9%), and avert 2.4 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-4.4%) in Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Economic cost savings of US $31.1 billion in North America and €21.1 billion (US $15.9 billion) in Europe could occur. Skin cancers averted and cost savings after prohibiting indoor tanning by minors may be associated with one-third of the corresponding benefits of a total ban. Conclusions and Relevance: Banning indoor tanning may be associated with reduced skin cancer burden and health care costs. Corresponding gains from prohibiting indoor tanning by minors only may be smaller.

Economic Evaluation of Systemic Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many high cost treatments for advanced melanoma have become available in recent years. National health technology assessment agencies have raised concerns regarding uncertainty in their clinical and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced melanoma and review model assumptions, outcomes, and quality as preparation for a health technology assessment. METHODS: A search of Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Database was conducted. Only studies using decision-analytic models were included. Two authors independently completed full-text review and data extraction. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. There were major differences in the structural assumptions underpinning the models. There was general agreement in study conclusions, although the predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment varied. BRAF monotherapy (vemurafenib, dabrafenib) or BRAF/MEK combination therapy (BRAF monotherapy with cobimetinib or trametinib) has not been shown to be cost-effective in any jurisdiction. PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) are consistently found to be cost-effective compared with ipilimumab, although their cost-effectiveness compared with chemotherapy is not established. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab is unlikely to be cost-effective in any setting. One study including all agents found that none of the new treatments were cost-effective relative to chemotherapy. Publication of the study in a health economics journal is associated with better reporting of and higher-quality assessment than those published in clinical journals. CONCLUSION: Despite differences in model structures and assumptions, the conclusions of most included studies were consistent. Health technology assessment has a key role in maximizing value from high-cost innovative treatments. Consideration should be given to divestment from BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab in favor of reimbursement of PD-1 inhibitors.