Costs of treatment and outcomes associated with second-line therapy and greater for relapsed ovarian cancer

Cancer drug development: The missing links

IMPACT STATEMENT

The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.

RESULTS

For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated.

LIMITATIONS

As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A review of the current evidence for maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

Ovarian cancer (OC) typically is diagnosed at advanced stages, in which the primary goal of therapy is to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In recent years, maintenance therapy has been tested for this purpose in advanced OC (AOC). Literature on maintenance therapy in AOC was systematically reviewed to assess current knowledge regarding the impact of this therapeutic approach.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed 2/2009 for articles published 1/2001-1/2009 pertaining to OC maintenance therapy guidelines, patterns, and outcomes. A second search used keywords specific to maintenance and included primary studies published in the last 10 years. Of 406 sources identified, 36 primary studies and 16 review articles were included in this systematic review. A third search used the keyword "consolidation" to find maintenance articles not identified through other searches; of 48 additional sources, 13 primary studies and 6 reviews were included. A fourth search of non-MEDLINE-indexed sources yielded 14 additional relevant publications from the same time period.

RESULTS

Among practice guidelines identified, only the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2008 guidelines provide recommendations regarding maintenance therapy, assigning it a category 2B recommendation. No studies were identified that reported current treatment patterns or economic outcomes in maintenance therapy; quality of life data were reported in one study. A variety of agents have been tested for maintenance, with paclitaxel the most commonly evaluated. The Southwest Oncology Group-Gynecologic Oncology Group 178 trial has found that 12 cycles of paclitaxel extend PFS (by 7 months) compared to 3 months paclitaxel, but could not adequately evaluate OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance therapy may improve clinical outcomes in AOC, but additional research is needed to demonstrate an OS advantage. Future studies should investigate the long-term clinical benefit of maintenance treatment and its impact on resource utilization and health-related quality of life.