Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab Compared with Bevacizumab Monotherapy for the First-Line Maintenance Treatment of Homologous Recombination Deficiency-Positive Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Mirvetuximab soravtansine in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer with high folate receptor-alpha expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients.

METHODS

Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOT-ov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Budget Impact Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab for Maintenance Therapy for Ovarian Cancer in Argentina

OBJECTIVES

To perform a budget impact analysis (BIA) of introducing olaparib as maintenance therapy in women who have BRCA mutations (BRCAm) with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) in combination with bevacizumab in Argentina.

METHODS

A BIA model was used to analyse over a 5-year time horizon the change in the health system's budget following the adoption of olaparib as maintenance therapy in BRCAm patients with PSROC. The BIA for each year was estimated by comparing the cost difference between the current scenario (treatment with bevacizumab) and the new scenario (the addition of olaparib) for a third-party payer. The BIA is estimated at the national health system level, and by healthcare sectors in Argentina (public sector, social security and private sector). International and national epidemiological data were used to determine the target patient population. Clinical efficacy, safety outcomes and duration of treatments were obtained from the pivotal clinical study report. Relevant direct medical costs were obtained from public data in Argentina and expert consultation. All the costs are reported in US dollars as of October 2022 ($1 = 152.59 Argentine pesos). A scenario analysis assessed the full coverage of the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) test in Argentina. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the model robustness.

RESULTS

For a third-party payer with a cohort of 1,000,000 women covered, the estimated target population was 2 individuals in year 1 and 6 individuals in year 5. The incorporation of olaparib, with a wholesale price per pack of $3176.32, was associated with a weighted average of the budget impact per member per month (PMPM) of $0.062 for the national health system, being above the estimated health system budget impact threshold ($0.0153). By healthcare sector, the results of budget impact PMPM for year 5 ranged between $0.08 (public sector) and $0.114 (private sector). For all perspectives, the variables that most influenced the budget impact was the incidence of ovarian cancer, the drug acquisition cost and the treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of olaparib for the treatment of BRCAm women with PSROC has a high budget impact for all three health systems in Argentina.

Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of genetic counselling for all patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE STUDY

Due to its importance for treatment and potential prevention in family members, germline testing for BRCA1/2 in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer is decisive and considered a standard of care. Maintenance therapy with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors substantially improves progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and homologous recombination-deficient tumours by inducing synthetic lethality. In Switzerland, they are licensed only for these patients. Therefore, it is crucial to test patients early while they are receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aimed to determine whether genetic counselling followed by homologous recombination deficiency testing is feasible for initialising maintenance therapy within eight weeks and cost-effective in daily practice in Switzerland compared to somatic tumour analysis of all patients at diagnosis.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective study included 44 patients with newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer of a Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage of IIIA-IVB diagnosed between 12/2020 and 12/2022. It collected the outcomes of genetic counselling, germline testing, and somatic Geneva test for homologous recombination deficiency. Delays in initiating maintenance therapy, total testing costs per patient, and progression-free survival were examined to assess feasibility and cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 44 patients (84%) with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer received counselling, of which 34 (77%) were tested for germline BRCA and other homologous recombination repair gene mutations. Five (15%) BRCA and three (9%) other homologous recombination deficiency mutations were identified. Eleven of the remaining 26 patients (42%) had tumours with somatic homologous recombination deficiency. The mean time to the initiation of maintenance therapy of 5.2 weeks was not longer than in studies for market authorisation (SOLO1, PAOLA, and PRIMA). The mean testing costs per patient were 3880 Swiss Franks (CHF), compared to 5624 CHF if all patients were tested at diagnosis with the myChoice CDx test (p <0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Using genetic counselling to consent patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer for germline testing fulfils the international gold standard. Subsequent somatic homologous recombination deficiency analysis complements testing and identifies more patients who will benefit from PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy. Contrary to previous health cost model studies, the procedure does not increase testing costs in the Swiss population and does not delay maintenance therapy. Therefore, all patients should be offered a primary germline analysis. The challenge for the future will be to ensure sufficient resources for prompt genetic counselling and germline testing.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HRD Testing for Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer (OC) is the eighth most common cancer among women, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is present in approximately 50% of these patients. For this group, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are more likely to be effective. The aim of the study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing versus BRCA testing (which identifies mutations present only in 25% of patients) in Italy to optimize the treatment management, possibly with PARP inhibitors.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness partition survival model was developed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (life years, LYs; quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) with lifetime horizon of HRD testing versus BRCA testing alone in women with high-grade serous or endometrioid advanced ovarian cancer. The option to perform the tests in sequence, that is, the BRCA test followed by the HRD test, in patients with BRCA-negative test was also considered, and the model accounted for the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy. The treatments represented the best available options according to the initial test results and according to PARP inhibitors available in Italy. A 3% discount rate was applied. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

HRD testing was shown to be a cost-effective strategy compared to BRCA testing (incremental cost-utility ratio 22,610€/QALY) and a cost-saving strategy compared to the sequence of tests. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the HRD test is cost-effective compared to BRCA testing in 98.5% of model simulations considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000€/QALY.

CONCLUSION

The identification of genetic anomalies in patients with advanced OC is a costly process. Regardless, HRD upfront testing compared to BRCA testing had a cost-effective profile, allowing the efficient use of healthcare resources and better life expectancy and quality of life for patients.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab as a first-line maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer by molecular status: an updated PAOLA-1 based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system.

METHODS

Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model's stability.

RESULTS

The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors in malignancies: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also bring an increase in costs. Thus, we aimed at evaluating the cost effectiveness of PARPis in the treatment of malignancies.

METHODS

Studies of cost effectiveness of PARPis were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Key information was extracted from the identified studies and reviewed. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Modeling techniques, measurement of parameters and uncertainty analysis were analyzed across studies. Interventions and cost-effectiveness results were reported stratified by patient population.

RESULTS

Among the 25 studies identified, we included 17 on ovarian cancer, 2 on breast cancer, 3 on pancreatic cancer, and 3 on prostate cancer that involved olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. All studies had a QHES score of above 75. In the maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer, additional administration of olaparib was cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but was not cost-effective for platinum-sensitive recurrent patients in majority studies. However, the economic value of other PARPis in ovarian cancer as well as all PARPis in other tumors remained controversial. Cost-effectiveness of PARPi was primarily impacted by the costs of PARPi, survival time, health utility and discount rate. Moreover, genetic testing improved the cost-effectiveness of PARPi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PARPi is potentially cost-effective for patients with ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer. Genetic testing can improve the cost-effectiveness of PARPi.