A systematic review of economic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Economic evaluations of pancreatic cancer screening: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The early detection of pancreatic cancer is an important step in reducing mortality by offering patients curative treatment. Screening strategies in risk populations and by means of different detection methods have been economically evaluated. However, a synthesis of screening studies to inform resource allocation towards early detection within the disease area has not been done. Therefore, studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness and costs of screening for pancreatic cancer should be systematically reviewed.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review of economic evaluations reporting the cost-effectiveness or costs of pancreatic cancer screening will be conducted. The electronic databases Medline, Web of Science and EconLit will be searched without geographical or time restrictions. Two independent reviewers will select eligible studies based on predefined criteria. The study quality will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Bias in Economic Evaluation checklist. One reviewer will extract relevant data and a second reviewer will cross-check compliance with the extraction sheet. Key items will include characteristics of screened individuals, the screening strategies used, and costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness as study outputs. Differences of opinion between the reviewers will be solved by consulting a third reviewer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this study since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through presentations at conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results of the systematic review will inform future economic evaluations of pancreatic screening, which provide guidance for decision-making in healthcare resource prioritisation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023475348.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been reported in recent research, however, the value of the effectiveness and cost of sacituzumab govitecan is still unclear.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed using data from the ASCENT trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC over a lifetime. Model inputs, including clinical data, patient characteristics, and direct medical costs, were based on the ASCENT trial, public databases, and published literature. The primary outcomes of the model were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and multiple scenario analyses were performed to address the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Our results revealed that sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $293,037 and yielded an additional 0.2340 of QALYs in the whole population with metastatic TNBC, leading to an ICER of $1,252,295 gained. And in the population with metastatic TNBC without brain metastasis, the sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $309,949 and obtained an extra 0.2633 of QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of $1,177,171/QALYs. Univariate analyses indicated that the model outcomes were most sensitive to the drug cost of sacituzumab govitecan, the utility of progression-free disease, and the utility of progressed disease.

CONCLUSION

From the US payer perspective, sacituzumab govitecan is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC compared with chemotherapy. Based on the value standpoint, a price decrease of sacituzumab govitecan is expected to increase the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic TNBC.

Real-world implications of nonbiological factors with staging, clinical management, and prognostic prediction in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system focuses on traditional biological factors (BFs). The present study incorporates nonbiological factors (NBFs) into the AJCC-TNM staging system in terms of the advanced clinical management and prognostic-prediction accuracy of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

METHODS

Eight thousand three hundred and thirty eligible patients with PDAC were obtained from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to testify the feasibility of cancer-specific survival (CSS) prediction based on TNM-NBF stages.

RESULTS

The large population-based study demonstrated that NBFs (insurance status, marital status, county-level median household income, and unemployment) were significant prognostic indicators (p < 0.005), and multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the NBF1 stage carried a 29.4% increased risk of cancer-specific mortality than NBF0 stage (p < 0.001). The concordance index of TNM-NBF stage was 0.755 (95% confidence interval: 0.740-0.769).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel NBF stage was independently associated with CSS of PDAC. In addition, combining TNM with the NBF stage could provide better clinical management and prognostic-prediction accuracy.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

Utility values and its time to deterioration in breast cancer patients after diagnosis and during treatments

BACKGROUND

The potential effects of breast cancer (BC) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should be considered in clinical and policy decision-making, as the economic burden of BC management is currently assessed. In the last decades, time-to-HRQoL score deterioration (TTD) has been proposed as an approach to the analysis of longitudinal HRQoL in oncology. The main objectives of the current study were to investigate the evolution of the utility values in BC patients after diagnosis and during follow-ups and to evaluate the TTD in utility values among women in all stages of BC.

METHODS

Health-state utility values (HSUV) were assessed using the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level at diagnosis, at the end of the first hospitalization and 3 and 6 months after the first hospitalization. For a given baseline score, HSUV was considered to have deteriorated if this score decreased by ≥ 0.08 points of the EQ-5D utility index score and ≥ 7 points of the EQ visual analogue scale. TTD curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimation method.

RESULTS

Overall 381 patients were enrolled between February 2006 and February 2008. The highest proportions of respondents at the baseline and all follow-ups reporting some and extreme problems were in pain discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions; more than 80% of patients experienced a deterioration in EQ-5D utility index score and EQ VAS score with a median TTD of 3.15 months and 6.24 Months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

BC patients undergoing therapy need psychological support to cope with their discomfort, pain, depression, anxiety, and fear during the process of diagnosis and treatment to improve their QoL.

French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), a widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire. It covers ten dimensions: physical, role functioning, social, emotional functioning, pain, fatigue, sleep, appetite, nausea and bowel problems. To allow national health preferences to be reflected, country-specific valuations are being performed through collaboration between the Multi-Attribute Utility Cancer (MAUCa) Consortium and the EORTC. The aim of this study was to determine the utility weights for health states in the French version of the QLU-C10D.

METHODS

Valuations were run in a web-based setting in a general population sample of 1033 adults. Utilities were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment (DCE). Data were analyzed by conditional logistic regression and mixed logits.

RESULTS

The sample was representative of the general French population in terms of gender and age. Dimensions with the largest impact on utility weights were, in this order: physical functioning, pain and emotional functioning. The impact on utilities was lower for role functioning, nausea, bowel problems and social functioning. The dimensions of sleep, fatigue and lacking appetite were associated with the smallest utility decrement.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study provide utility weights for the QLU-C10D and offer interesting prospects, as some cancer-specific dimensions also received sizeable utility weights (nausea and bowel problems). In fact, the EQ-5D and the HUI 3 are recommended in France and commonly used for cancer-related CUA; however, both these instruments are generic. The availability of a new cancer-specific utility instrument, such as the QLU-C10D, could improve the quality and the pertinence of future CUA in oncology.

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

Background: Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been shown to be effective. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for MPC from the US payer perspective. Materials and Methods: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MPC. Efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each POLO group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net-health benefit, and incremental monetary benefit were measured. Subgroup analysis, one-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $191,596 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a high cost of $132,287 and 0.691 PFS QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that maintenance olaparib achieved at least a 16.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and the cost of olaparib. When overall survival was considered, maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $265,290 per additional QALY gained, with a high cost of $128,266 and 0.483 QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Conclusions: Maintenance olaparib is potentially cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with a germline BRCA mutation and MPC. Economic outcomes could be improved by tailoring treatment based on individual patient factors.

Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Background:

The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on advanced TNBC from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed advanced TNBC. The clinical data were gathered from the IMpassion130 trial. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results:

Our results demonstrated that atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel augmented versus nab-paclitaxel therapy cost $104,278 and $149,465 and yielded an additional 0.371 and 0.762 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in in all patients with unknown PD-L1 status and subpopulation with PD-L1-positive, respectively, which led to an ICER of $281,448 and $196,073 per QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment guiding by PD-L1 expression testing resulted in an ICER of $183,508 per QALY gained. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel could maintain a trend of positive incremental net health benefits and >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY in more than half of subgroups with PD-L1-positive. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel treatment.

Conclusion:

The atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy based on nab-paclitaxel for the patients with PD-L1-positive advanced TNBC.

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis).

CONCLUSION

A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.

Are ENT1/ENT1, NOTCH3, and miR-21 Reliable Prognostic Biomarkers in Patients with Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treated with Adjuvant Gemcitabine Monotherapy?

Evidence on equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (ENT1) and microRNA-21 (miR‑21) is not yet sufficiently convincing to consider them as prognostic biomarkers for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Here, we investigated the prognostic value of ENT1/ENT1, miR-21, and neurogenic locus homolog protein 3 gene (NOTCH3) in a well-defined cohort of resected patients treated with adjuvant gemcitabine chemotherapy (n = 69). Using a combination of gene expression quantification in microdissected tissue, immunohistochemistry, and univariate/multivariate statistical analyses we did not confirm association of ENT1/ENT1 and NOTCH3 with improved disease-specific survival (DSS). Low miR-21 was associated with longer DSS in patients with negative regional lymph nodes or primary tumor at stage 1 and 2. In addition, downregulation of ENT1 was observed in PDAC of patients with high ENT1 expression in normal pancreas, whereas NOTCH3 was upregulated in PDAC of patients with low NOTCH3 levels in normal pancreas. Tumor miR‑21 was upregulated irrespective of its expression in normal pancreas. Our data confirmed that patient stratification based on expression of ENT1/ENT1 or miR‑21 is not ready to be implemented into clinical decision-making processes. We also conclude that occurrence of ENT1 and NOTCH3 deregulation in PDAC is dependent on their expression in normal pancreas.

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs

INTRODUCTION

Innovative drugs have been approved in ophthalmology. Thus, the number and importance of economic evaluation studies of ophthalmic drugs have been growing. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of ophthalmic drugs.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until November 2018 to identify full pharmacoeconomic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs. The quality of studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist. Quality indicators were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. Ninety-five studies were included, 50 (52.6%) cost-utility analysis, 28 (29.5%) cost-effectiveness and 17 (17.9%) cost-effectiveness/cost-utility. All studies presented, at least, three methodological limitations. Cost-utility studies, studies conducted from a health system perspective, with time horizons longer than one-year and that rely on observational or observational and experimental data simultaneously are associated with higher quality. Only eight (8.4%) studies considered two eyes in the economic analysis and only 13 (13.7%) considered the natural history of the disease when extrapolating results for long-term analysis.

EXPERT OPINION

The majority of the pharmacoeconomic studies were assessed as having good methodological quality, however, the methodological quality scores were sensitive to several indicators. Therefore, improving the quality of studies would enhance their usefulness in the decision-making processes.