A cost-utility analysis of NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol 218: incorporating prospectively collected quality-of-life scores in an economic model of treatment of ovarian cancer

Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation

Background

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.

Methods

We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.

Results

We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.

Limitations

Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Triplet maintenance therapy of olaparib, pembrolizumab and bevacizumab in women with BRCA wild-type, platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: the multicenter, single-arm phase II study OPEB-01/APGOT-OV4

In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, Phase II study with Simon two-stage optimum design (NCT04361370), we investigate the efficacy and safety of triplet maintenance (olaparib, pembrolizumab, bevacizumab) in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer who are wild-type for BRCA 1/2. A total of 44 patients were enrolled, and the median follow-up duration was 22.9 months (interquartile range: 17.4-24.7). The primary outcome was 6-months progression-free survival (PFS), which was 88.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.4-96.2), meeting the pre-specified primary endpoint. The secondary outcomes reported here include median PFS, 12-months PFS, and overall survival and safety. The median PFS was 22.4 months (20.4-∞), with a 12-months PFS rate of 84.0% (95% CI 69.3-92.0). The median overall survival was 28.6 months (27.3-∞). The combination demonstrated tolerable toxicity with manageable side effects. Other secondary outcomes include time-to-progression, time to subsequent treatment, time to second treatment and PFS2; however, this data is not reported, as treatment is still ongoing in a majority of patients. Exploratory analysis shows that patients who were homologous recombination deficiency-positive or had a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1 showed a favorable response (P = 0.043 and P < 0.001, respectively). Thus, triplet maintenance shows durable efficacy with tolerable safety in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrence.

Cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy following interval cytoreductive surgery for stage III-IV ovarian cancer from a randomized controlled phase III trial in Korea (KOV-HIPEC-01)

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) following interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) for stage III-IV ovarian cancer from a randomized controlled phase III trial.

METHODS

A comparative cost-effective analysis was performed using a Markov health-state transition model derived from the current trial cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01091636). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated by dividing the incremental costs by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with a time horizon of 10 years. Costs were calculated from the perspective of Korean healthcare, and health utility values were extracted from published sources.

RESULTS

Based on data from the trial, the mean QALY in the ICS group was 7.16 compared to 10.8 in ICS followed by the HIPEC group. With an incremental QALY of 3.64, the ICS followed by HIPEC, was estimated to obtain an ICER of KRW 954,598 (USD 708.3) per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the study suggest that ICS followed by HIPEC, is cost-effective with a significant gain in QALYs. These results may support the current reimbursement of HIPEC from Korean insurance services and the management of long-term conditions.

Estimating Treatment-Switching Bias in a Randomized Clinical Trial of Ovarian Cancer Treatment: Combining Causal Inference with Decision-Analytic Modeling

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab is efficacious in delaying ovarian cancer progression and controlling ascites. The ICON7 trial showed a significant benefit in overall survival for bevacizumab, whereas the GOG-218 trial did not. GOG-218 allowed control group patients to switch to bevacizumab upon progression, which may have biased the results. Lack of data on switching behavior prevented the application of g-methods to adjust for switching. The objective of this study was to apply decision-analytic modeling to estimate the impact of switching bias on causal treatment-effect estimates.

METHODS

We developed a causal decision-analytic Markov model (CDAMM) to emulate the GOG-218 trial and estimate overall survival. CDAMM input parameters were based on data from randomized clinical trials and the published literature. Overall switching proportion was based on GOG-218 trial information, whereas the proportion switching with and without ascites was estimated using calibration. We estimated the counterfactual treatment effect that would have been observed had no switching occurred by denying switching in the CDAMM.

RESULTS

The survival curves generated by the CDAMM matched well with the ones reported in the GOG-218 trial. The survival curve correcting for switching showed an estimated bias such that 79% of the true treatment effect could not be observed in the GOG-218 trial. Results were most sensitive to changes in the proportion progressing with severe ascites and mortality.

LIMITATIONS

We used a simplified model structure and based model parameters on published data and assumptions. Robustness of the CDAMM was tested and model assumptions transparently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical-decision science methods may be merged with empirical methods of causal inference to integrate data from other sources where empirical data are not sufficient. We recommend collecting sufficient information on switching behavior when switching cannot be avoided.

Cost-Effectiveness of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis During Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

Two recent clinical trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective as venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with moderate-to-high risk ambulatory cancer initiating chemotherapy. Patients with advanced ovarian cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at particularly increased risk of VTE. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a health system perspective to determine if DOACs are a feasible prophylactic strategy in this population.

METHODS

A simple decision tree was created from a health system perspective, comparing two strategies: prophylactic DOAC taken for 18 weeks during chemotherapy versus no VTE prophylaxis. Rates of VTE (7.3% DOAC v 13.6% no treatment), major bleeding (2.6% v 1.3%), and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (4.6% v 3.3%) were modeled. Cost estimates were obtained from wholesale drug costs, published studies, and Medicare reimbursement data. Probabilistic, one-way, and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case model, DOAC prophylaxis is more costly and more effective than no therapy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $256,218 in US dollars/quality-adjusted life year). In one-way sensitivity analyses, reducing the DOAC cost by 32% or raising the baseline VTE rate above 18% renders this strategy potentially cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below $150,000 in US dollars/quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSION

Further confirmation of the true baseline VTE rate among women initiating neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer will determine whether prophylactic dose DOAC is a value-based strategy. Less costly VTE prophylaxis options such as generic DOACs (once available) and aspirin also warrant investigation.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States

IMPORTANCE

There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS).

RESULTS

Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy.

METHODS

The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained.

RESULTS

PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved.

RESULTS

For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy.

RESULTS

Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751.

CONCLUSION

Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Targeted composite value-based endpoints in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

FDA-approved treatments for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) include bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors (PARPi); clinical decisions regarding therapy must be made prior to initiating chemotherapy. Using the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) value frameworks, we assessed relative values of concurrent/maintenance biologic therapies in PSROC.

METHODS

Value scores were calculated for key maintenance therapies based on randomized controlled trials: bevacizumab (OCEANS, GOG 213); olaparib (Study 19, SOLO2); niraparib (NOVA); rucaparib (ARIEL3). Personalized value scorecards were constructed for patients with germline/somatic-BRCA mutations, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and wild-type BRCA (wBRCA). ASCO value scores assess clinical benefit, toxicity, long-term survival, symptom palliation, treatment-free interval, and quality of life (QOL). ESMO value scores assess clinical benefit, toxicity, and QOL.

RESULTS

ASCO scores were highest for maintenance PARPi in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts: olaparib (SOLO2) = 47, (Study 19) = 62; niraparib = 50; rucaparib = 54. HRD cohorts had slightly lower scores: niraparib = 46; rucaparib = 37. wBRCA cohorts had the lowest scores: niraparib = 26; rucaparib = 26; and olaparib (Study 19) = 32, as did patients receiving bevacizumab (OCEANS) = 35, (GOG 213) = 26. ESMO scores demonstrated high-value for maintenance PARPi in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts and low-value for bevacizumab and PARPi in wBRCA cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

The value of maintenance PARPi therapy depends heavily on BRCA status, with the highest value scores in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts. Personalized value scorecards provide a visual aid to assess the harm-benefit balance of maintenance PARPi for PSROC.

Anti-angiogenesis therapy, synthetic lethality, and checkpoint inhibition in ovarian cancer: state of the science and novel combinations

Over the last decade, new therapeutics in the form of anti-angiogenic treatment, synthetic lethality, and checkpoint inhibition have offered new options for the treatment of ovarian cancer. This review summarizes studies related to these treatment modalities and additionally novel combinations that offer a veritable therapeutic matrix for clinicians to choose from.

Changes in ovarian cancer survival during the 20 years before the era of targeted therapy

Background

The survival of patients with ovarian cancer has improved because of surgery and chemotherapy. This study aimed to estimate the changes in survival rates among Korean women with ovarian cancer prior to the introduction of targeted therapy for ovarian cancer.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Korea Central Cancer Registry regarding patients who were diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 1995 and 2014. The relative survival rates were calculated for 5-year periods using the Ederer II method. Cox proportional hazard models were created to assess the associations of demographic and clinicopathological factors with ovarian cancer survival.

Results

During the study period, 22,880 women were diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. The 5-year relative survival rate improved from 57.2% during 1995–1999 to 63.8% during 2010–2014 (P < 0.001). Survival outcomes improved between 1995 and 1999 and 2010–2014 for the serous and endometrioid carcinoma subtypes (P < 0.001). However, no improvements were observed for the mucinous and clear cell carcinoma subtypes (P = 0.189 and P = 0.293, respectively). Multivariate analysis revealed that younger age, early stage, recent diagnosis, primary surgical treatment, and non-serous histological subtype were favorable prognostic factors.

Conclusion

Survival outcomes have improved for serous and endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer in the last 20 years. However, no improvement was observed for patients with mucinous and clear cell carcinoma subtypes.

First- and second-line bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: A Belgian cost-utility analysis

Background

Currently, in Belgium, bevacizumab is reimbursed for ovarian cancer patients, based on a contract between the Minister and the manufacturer including confidential agreements. This reimbursement will be re-evaluated in 2018.

Objective

To support the reimbursement reassessment by calculating the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab: (1) in addition to first-line chemotherapy; (2) in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant).

Methods

A health economic model has been developed for the Belgian situation according to the Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations. The lifetime Markov model was set up from the perspective of the health care payer (government and patient), including direct healthcare related costs. Results are expressed as the extra costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Calculations were based on results of four international trials. Both probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line bevacizumab are on average 158 000/QALY (GOG-0218 trial) and 443 000/QALY (ICON7 trial). The most favourable scenario is based on the stage IV subgroup of the GOG-0218 trial (€52 000/QALY). Since subgroup findings are often exploratory and require confirmatory studies, results of the economic evaluation based on this subgroup analysis should be considered with caution. For second-line bevacizumab, ICERs are on average €587 000/QALY (OCEANS trial) and €172 000/QALY (AURELIA trial). Sensitivity analysis shows that results are most sensitive to the price of bevacizumab.

Conclusion

From a health economic perspective, ICERs of bevacizumab are relatively high. The most favourable results are found for first-line treatment of stage IV ovarian cancer patients. Price reductions have a major impact on the estimated ICERs. It is recommended to take these findings into account when re-evaluating the reimbursement of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer.

ASCO Value Framework Highlights the Relative Value of Treatment Options in Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE

The ASCO value framework allows physicians and patients to compare the relative value of novel treatments. Our aim was to assess the value of three frontline ovarian cancer therapies by using this framework.

METHODS

From phase III, randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) data, the net health benefits (NHBs) for three frontline ovarian cancer treatment options-dose-dense paclitaxel (Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group study JGOG 3016), intraperitoneal (IP)/intravenous (IV) chemotherapy (Gynecologic Oncology Group [GOG] study GOG 172), and concurrent plus maintenance bevacizumab (GOG 218 and the Seventh International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm study [ICON7])-were calculated. The ASCO value framework calculates the NHB by using six criteria: clinical benefit, toxicity, tail of the curve, symptom palliation, treatment-free interval, and quality of life. Clinical benefit calculation uses ASCO-assigned importance weights for overall survival and progression-free survival. The maximum possible NHB points is 180. NHBs were presented alongside the drug-acquisition cost (DAC) of each therapy. A benefit-cost ratio of NHB points per additional cost was calculated.

RESULTS

The NHB of dose-dense paclitaxel was 38, at an additional cost of $16 per cycle. IP cisplatin/IV + IP paclitaxel received 29 NHB points, at an additional cost of $1,629 per cycle. Concurrent plus maintenance bevacizumab received 24 NHB points, at an additional cost of $7,581 per cycle (GOG 218) or six NHB points ($3,790 per cycle; ICON7). The ratios of NHB points-to-dollar were as follows: dose-dense paclitaxel, 2.4 (highest); IP chemotherapy, 0.018; and bevacizumab, 0.003 (lowest).

CONCLUSION

Using the ASCO value framework, we constructed value snapshots of three major frontline therapeutic options in ovarian cancer. Dose-dense paclitaxel provided the highest additional value when analysis accounted for NHB and cost. However, additional research is needed to include individual patient preferences and provide personalized value assessments.

Bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: A critical review of phase III studies

Bevacizumab (BV) is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and it is the first molecular-targeted agent to be used for the treatment of ovarian cancer (OC). Randomized Phase III trials evaluated the combination of BV plus standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced OC and for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant recurrent OC. These trials reported a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival but not in overall survival. Furthermore, BV effectively improved the quality of life with regard to abdominal symptoms in recurrent OC patients. Bevacizumab is associated with adverse events such as hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolism, proteinuria, delayed wound healing, and gastrointestinal events. However, most of these events can be adequately managed. This review describes the latest evidence for BV treatment of OC and selection of patients for personalized treatment.

Adding bevacizumab to single agent chemotherapy for the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: A cost effectiveness analysis of the AURELIA trial

OBJECTIVE

AURELIA, a randomized phase III trial of adding bevacizumab (B) to single agent chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, demonstrated improved progression free survival (PFS) in the B+CT arm compared to CT alone. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding B to CT in the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab (B) to single agent chemotherapy (CT) based on the arms of the AURELIA trial. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and progression free survival (PFS) were modeled over fifteen months. Model inputs were extracted from published literature and public sources. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained and ICERs per progression free life year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results.

RESULTS

The ICER associated with B+CT is $410,455 per QALY gained and $217,080 per PF-LYS. At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, adding B to single agent CT is not cost effective for this patient population. Even at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, B+CT is not cost effective. These findings are robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite gains in QALY and PFS, the addition of B to single agent CT for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Benefits, risks, and costs associated with treatment should be taken into consideration when prescribing chemotherapy for this patient population.

Primary Surgery or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced Ovarian Cancer: The Debate Continues…

Primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by platinum-based chemotherapy has been the cornerstone of treatment for advanced ovarian cancer for decades. Primary debulking surgery has been repeatedly identified as one of the key factors in improving survival in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, especially when minimal or no residual disease is left behind. Achieving these results sometimes requires extensive abdominal and pelvic surgical procedures and consultation with other surgical teams. Some clinicians who propose a primary chemotherapy approach reported an increased likelihood of leaving no macroscopic disease after surgery and improved patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life (QOL) measures. Given the ongoing debate regarding the relative benefit of PDS versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), tumor biology may aid in patient selection for each approach. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy offers the opportunity for in vivo chemosensitivity testing. Studies are needed to determine the best way to evaluate the impact of NACT in each individual patient with advanced ovarian cancer. Indeed, the biggest utility of NACT may be in research, where this approach provides the opportunity for the investigation of predictive markers, mechanisms of resistance, and a forum to test novel therapies.

Treatment preferences of advanced ovarian cancer patients for adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy

BACKGROUND

The GOG-218 and ICON-7 studies recently showed that adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer increased progression-free survival. However, the high cost and long treatment duration prevents the incorporation of bevacizumab in practice. The aim of this study was to explore and quantify patients' preferences for adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and trade-off question were designed and distributed to 102 ovarian cancer patients. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical first-line therapies that differed in terms of effectiveness, safety, and the financial burden. A trade-off technique varying the cost of bevacizumab was used to quantify a willingness-to-pay threshold for selecting bevacizumab.

RESULTS

All attributes of the DCE had a statistically significant impact on respondents' preferences and the financial burden was the most important attribute. The results of the trade-off question showed that more than half of patients would prefer to add bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy when the cost of the drug was reduced to 17% (1/6) of the baseline cost.

CONCLUSION

Patients' preferences for bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of ovarian cancer depend primarily on drug costs. Our results suggest that the current cost of bevacizumab is sufficiently high that the majority of ovarian cancer patients are not willing to pay to accept a small increase in progression-free survival.

Is FDA-Approved Bevacizumab Cost-Effective When Included in the Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer?

PURPOSE

Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved incorporation of bevacizumab (BEV) into the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), cost-value measures are an essential consideration, as evidenced by the recent ASCO Value Framework initiative. We assessed the cost-effectiveness and reviewed the net health benefit (NHB) of this expensive treatment.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness decision model was constructed using results from a phase III trial comparing BEV plus cytotoxic chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in patients with PROC. The Avastin Use in Platinum-Resistant Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (AURELIA) trial demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival and quality of life in patients receiving BEV. Costs, paracentesis rates, and adverse events were incorporated, including subgroup analysis of different partner chemotherapy agents.

RESULTS

Inclusion of BEV in the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer meets the common willingness-to-pay incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) threshold of $100,000 per progression-free life-year saved (LYS) for 15-mg/kg dosing and approaches this threshold for 10-mg/kg dosing, with an ICER of $160,000. In sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of BEV by 13% (from $9,338 to $8,100 per cycle) allows 10-mg/kg dosing to reach a $100,000 ICER. Exploratory analysis of different BEV chemotherapy partners showed an ICER of $76,000 per progression-free LYS (6.5-month progression-free survival improvement) and $54,000 per LYS (9.1-month overall survival improvement) for the addition of BEV to paclitaxel once per week. Using the ASCO framework for value assessment, the NHB score for BEV plus paclitaxel once per week is 48.

CONCLUSION

Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 ICER, the addition of BEV to chemotherapy either demonstrates or approaches cost-effectiveness and NHB when added to the treatment of patients with PROC.

Weekly ixabepilone with or without biweekly bevacizumab in the treatment of recurrent or persistent uterine and ovarian/primary peritoneal/fallopian tube cancers: A retrospective review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical outcome and tolerability of weekly ixabepilone (16-20mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle)±biweekly bevacizumab (10mg/kg days 1 and 15) in patients with recurrent/persistent uterine or ovarian/primary peritoneal/fallopian tube cancers.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was performed inclusive of all patients who received ≥2cycles from 01/2010 to 06/2014. Progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Toxicities were graded according to CTCAEv4.0. Best response was categorized using RECIST or by CA-125 criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients (24 uterine and 36 ovarian cancers) were identified. Patients had received a median of 3.5 (range:1-10) prior lines of chemotherapy. Patients completed a mean of 4.7±2.9cycles of ixabepilone; 66.7% (16/24) and 91.7% (33/36) of patients with uterine and ovarian cancers received concurrent bevacizumab. For uterine cancers, objective response rate (ORR) was 41.7% (12.5% complete, 29.2% partial); median duration of response or stabilization was 7months (range:2-30). Median PFS and OS were 5.2 and 9.6months, respectively. PFS and OS were improved in the setting of concurrent bevacizumab (6.5 versus 3.0months, p=0.01, HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.77; 9.6 versus 4.2months, p=0.02, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.04-0.74). Similar ORR was observed among ovarian cancers; median PFS/OS were not yet reached. Most toxicities were grade 1/2.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly ixabepilone with or without biweekly bevacizumab has promising activity and acceptable toxicity in patients with platinum-/taxane-resistant endometrial and ovarian cancers. This combination warrants further prospective study in these populations.