Economic analysis of conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer

Economic Evaluations in National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Network Cancer Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

Amid a rapid increase in cancer care costs, we examined the extent to which economic evaluations (EEs) were conducted for new treatments evaluated in clinical trials at SWOG, a large National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research network.

METHODS

We investigated phase III cancer treatment clinical trials activated from 1980 onward with primary articles reporting the protocol-designated endpoints published in scientific journals by 2017. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit, we searched for EEs using trial name, cancer type, information on the comparison arms, and refined keywords for EE designs. We reported the overall proportion of trials with associated EEs and trends of this proportion over time. We synthesized and analyzed information on funding sources, health outcomes, and sources of quality-of-life and cost data from the EEs.

RESULTS

Among 182 examined trials, 15 EEs were associated with 13 (7.1%) trials. Among the EEs, almost half (7 of 15) were either unfunded or did not report funding information, whereas nearly half (7 of 15) were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 2 (2 of 15, 13.3%) were supported by federal funding. All EEs reported a healthcare payer perspective. The proportion of trials with an associated EE increased from 1980 to 1989 and 2000 to 2009, but never exceeded 11%. Sources for cost and quality-of-life data for the EEs primarily came from outside the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Few economic studies of treatments evaluated in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted. Policymakers, payers, and patients lack economic evidence to consider newly evaluated cancer treatments, despite an urgent need to control healthcare costs.

Impact of drug development on the use of stem cell transplantation: a report by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT)

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is used with increasing frequency in Europe with 40 000 transplants reported in 2014. Transplant-related mortality remains high in allogeneic HSCT (10-20%); high-dose chemotherapy is toxic and demanding for patients. Drug development is accelerating and with limited toxicity of some targeted drugs may replace HSCT, whereas others may function as a 'bridge to transplant'. We analyzed HSCT reported to the activity survey for selected diseases in which major advances in drug development have been made. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors markedly changed the number of allogeneic HSCT in early CML. In myelodysplastic syndromes, hypomethylating agents show no effect on HSCT activity and Janus kinase inhibitors for myeloproliferative neoplasm appear to have only a temporary effect. For CLL autologous HSCT decreased after publication of trials showing improved PFS but no overall survival advantage and allogeneic rates are dropping after the introduction of Bruton kinase and PI3K Inhibitors. Whether these are 'game changers' as was imatinib for CML requires additional follow-up. For myeloma, proteasome inhibitors and new immunomodulatory drugs do not appear to impact transplant rates. Drug development data show different effects on HSCT use; highly effective drugs may replace HSCT, whereas other drugs may improve the patient's condition to allow for HSCT.

One million haemopoietic stem-cell transplants: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The transplantation of cells, tissues, and organs has been recognised by WHO as an important medical task for its member states; however, information about how to best organise transplantation is scarce. We aimed to document the activity worldwide from the beginning of transplantation and search for region adapted indications and associations between transplant rates and macroeconomics.

METHODS

Between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2014, the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation collected data for the evolution of haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) activity and volunteer donors in the 194 WHO member states.

FINDINGS

953,651 HSCTs (553,350 [58%] autologous and 400,301 [42%] allogeneic) were reported by 1516 transplant centres from 75 countries. No transplants were done in countries with fewer than 300,000 inhabitants, a surface area less than 700 km(2), and a gross national income per person of US$1260 or lower. Use of HSCT increased from the first transplant in 1957 to almost 10,000 by 1985. We recorded a cumulative total of about 100,000 transplants by 1995, and an estimated 1 million by December, 2012. Unrelated donor registries contributed 22·3 million typed volunteer donors and 645,646 cord blood products by 2012. Numbers of allogeneic HSCTs increased in the past 35 years with no signs of saturation (R(2)=0·989). Transplant rates were higher in countries with more resources, more transplant teams, and an unrelated donor infrastructure.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show achievements and high unmet needs and give guidance for decisions; to grant access for patients, to provide a donor infrastructure, and to limit overuse by defining risk and region adapted indications for HSCT as an efficient and cost-effective approach for life-threatening, potentially curable diseases.

FUNDING

Funding for this study was indirectly provided by support of the WBMT.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.

OBJECTIVE

The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

METHODS

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.

RESULTS

Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Economic evaluation of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation is a highly expensive clinical intervention with considerable therapeutic benefit but serious adverse effects on health status in some circumstances. Consequently, it is an important target for economic evaluation in which the monetary costs and clinical consequences of optional treatment strategies are compared. The need for such formal assessment is further demanded by the expanded use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation globally, including its utilization in developing countries. With respect to costs, those incurred by patients and families are often substantial, while those incurred by hospitals may be inadequately reimbursed. Determination of consequences should not be limited to measurements of clinical effectiveness but rather include adjustments for quality of life. Rigorous economic evaluation can provide hard evidence in deliberations of value for money, especially in the context of limited resources for health care.

Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

An effectiveness assessment on ASCT in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer identified serious ethical issues associated with this intervention. Our objective was to systematically review these aspects by means of a literature analysis.

METHODS

We chose the reflexive Socratic approach as the review method using Hofmann's question list, conducted a comprehensive literature search in biomedical, psychological and ethics bibliographic databases and screened the resulting hits in a 2-step selection process. Relevant arguments were assembled from the included articles, and were assessed and assigned to the question list. Hofmann's questions were addressed by synthesizing these arguments.

RESULTS

Of the identified 879 documents 102 included arguments related to one or more questions from Hofmann's question list. The most important ethical issues were the implementation of ASCT in clinical practice on the basis of phase-II trials in the 1990s and the publication of falsified data in the first randomized controlled trials (Bezwoda fraud), which caused significant negative effects on recruiting patients for further clinical trials and the doctor-patient relationship. Recent meta-analyses report a marginal effect in prolonging disease-free survival, accompanied by severe harms, including death. ASCT in breast cancer remains a stigmatized technology. Reported health-related-quality-of-life data are often at high risk of bias in favor of the survivors. Furthermore little attention has been paid to those patients who were dying.

CONCLUSIONS

The questions were addressed in different degrees of completeness. All arguments were assignable to the questions. The central ethical dimensions of ASCT could be discussed by reviewing the published literature.

Cost-effectiveness of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk breast cancer: is tailored and dose-escalated chemotherapy with growth factor support (GFS) more costly and less effective than marrow-supported high-dose chemotherapy - results from a randomized study

Based on randomized studies bone-marrow supported (BMS) high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) is not superior to conventional CT as adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatments we examined the data of Finnish patients in the SBG9401 trial 1. Patients were randomized to receive either dose-escalated (de FEC) (group A, n =59) or FEC and HDCT+BMS (group B, n =70). They received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) + tamoxifen. All direct health care costs of first line treatment at the oncology units were considered as well as productivity costs within the first 3 years of follow-up. Effectiveness was measured by the number of survival days during 5 years of follow-up. The mean direct health care costs were significantly higher in group B (25829 euro in group A vs. 36605 euro in group B, p <0.001), mainly due to a higher number of hospital days. Half of the costs in group A was due to the use of filgrastim (15335 euro in A and 2969 euro in B, p <0.001). The costs of RT were only 5% of total costs. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the number of survival days, but sensitivity analysis based on bootstrapping suggested that treatment A would be a less costly and more effective alternative in a great majority of cases.

Review of cost-effectiveness analyses in hormonal therapies in advanced breast cancer

Many new cancer treatments that slow progression and extend survival are emerging. These advances bring new hope to patients and physicians, but often increase health expenditures in an already cost-conscious environment. To help guide resource allocation decisions, cost-effectiveness models are constructed to compare the costs and outcomes of new treatments with current options, and to encourage the uptake of new technologies. This study focuses on the cost-effectiveness studies published since 1997 for hormonal treatment options in advanced breast cancer. This paper: i) examines the quality of studies in terms of reporting methods and transparency of the models; ii) compares the calculated cost-effectiveness ratios; and iii) makes recommendations for future cost-effectiveness models in advanced breast cancer.

High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with oligometastatic breast cancer

The purpose of this prospective trial was to study a combined-modality treatment including local consolidation by surgery or radiotherapy and high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by peripheral-blood stem-cell (PBSC) transplantation. In all, 48 patients with oligometastatic breast cancer amenable to local treatment after induction chemotherapy with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide or paclitaxel and cisplatin, depending on prior adjuvant chemotherapy, were enrolled. The median follow-up was 41 months (range, 7-85 months). PBSC were collected in 47 patients, and 40 received one or two courses of HDC. Local therapy was given in 37 patients. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Of 47 evaluable patients, 36 (75% of intention-to-treat population) had no evidence of disease or complete remission after completion of therapy. Six patients (12.5%) had partial response, two patients (4%) no change, and three patients (6%) progressive disease. The median time to progression and overall survival was 17.5 (95% confidence interval (CI), 14-21 months) and 42.2 months (95% CI, 33-52 months), respectively, and 27% of patients were progression free after 5 years. In conclusion, patients with oligometastatic breast cancer can be treated safely with this combined modality protocol with promising relapse-free survivals.