Cost-effectiveness of using a gene expression profiling test to aid in identifying the primary tumour in patients with cancer of unknown primary

Site-specific therapy guided by a 90-gene expression assay versus empirical chemotherapy in patients with cancer of unknown primary (Fudan CUP-001): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Empirical chemotherapy remains the standard of care in patients with unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Gene-expression profiling assays have been developed to identify the tissue of origin in patients with CUP; however, their clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of site-specific therapy directed by a 90-gene expression assay compared with empirical chemotherapy in patients with CUP.

METHODS

This randomised controlled trial was conducted at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China). We enrolled patients aged 18-75 years, with previously untreated CUP (histologically confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or poorly differentiated neoplasms) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, who were not amenable to local radical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive either site-specific therapy or empirical chemotherapy (taxane [175 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1] plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 by intravenous infusion on day 1], or gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8] plus platinum [same as above]). The minimisation factors were ECOG performance status and the extent of the disease. Clinicians and patients were not masked to interventions. The tumour origin in the site-specific therapy group was predicted by the 90-gene expression assay and treatments were administered accordingly. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial has been completed and the analysis is final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03278600).

FINDINGS

Between Sept 18, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 182 patients (105 [58%] male, 77 [42%] female) were randomly assigned to receive site-specific therapy (n=91) or empirical chemotherapy (n=91). The five most commonly predicted tissues of origin in the site-specific therapy group were gastro-oesophagus (14 [15%]), lung (12 [13%]), ovary (11 [12%]), cervix (11 [12%]), and breast (nine [10%]). At the data cutoff date (April 30, 2023), median follow-up was 33·3 months (IQR 30·4-51·0) for the site-specific therapy group and 30·9 months (27·6-35·5) for the empirical chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with site-specific therapy than with empirical chemotherapy (9·6 months [95% CI 8·4-11·9] vs 6·6 months [5·5-7·9]; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·49-0·93]; p=0·017). Among the 167 patients who started planned treatment, 46 (56%) of 82 patients in the site-specific therapy group and 52 (61%) of 85 patients in the empirical chemotherapy group had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events; the most frequent of these in the site-specific therapy and empirical chemotherapy groups were decreased neutrophil count (36 [44%] vs 42 [49%]), decreased white blood cell count (17 [21%] vs 26 [31%]), and anaemia (ten [12%] vs nine [11%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) patients in the site-specific therapy group and two (2%) in the empirical chemotherapy group. No treatment-related deaths were observed.

INTERPRETATION

This single-centre randomised trial showed that site-specific therapy guided by the 90-gene expression assay could improve progression-free survival compared with empirical chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated CUP. Site-specific prediction by the 90-gene expression assay might provide more disease information and expand the therapeutic armamentarium in these patients.

FUNDING

Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Program for Shanghai Outstanding Academic Leader, and Shanghai Anticancer Association SOAR PROJECT.

TRANSLATION

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiation Therapy Alone Versus Hormone Therapy Alone or Combined Treatment for Low-Risk ER-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older

PURPOSE

The optimal management of early-stage, low-risk, hormone-positive breast cancer in older women remains controversial. Recent trials have shown that 5-fraction ultrahypofractionated whole-breast irradiation (U-WBI) has similar outcomes to longer courses, reducing the cost and inconvenience of treatment. We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare U-WBI to hormone therapy alone or their combination.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We simulated 3 different treatment approaches for women age 65 years or older with pT1-2N0 ER-positive invasive ductal carcinoma treated with lumpectomy with negative margins using a Markov microsimulation model. The strategies were U-WBI performed with a 3-dimensional conformal technique over 5 fractions without a boost ("radiation therapy [RT] alone"), adjuvant hormone therapy (anastrozole for 5 years) without RT ("aromatase-inhibitor [AI] alone"), or the combination of the 2. The combination strategy was calibrated to match trial results, and the relative effectiveness of the RT alone and AI alone strategies were inferred from previous randomized trials. The primary endpoint was the cost-effectiveness of the 3 strategies over a lifetime horizon as measured by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a value of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year deemed "cost-effective."

RESULTS

The model results compared with the prespecified target outcomes. On average, RT alone was the least expensive strategy ($14,775), with AI alone slightly more ($14,998), and combination therapy the costliest ($19,802). RT alone dominated AI alone (the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] -$5089). Combination therapy, compared with RT alone, was slightly more expensive than our definition of cost-effective (ICER $113,468) but was cost-effective compared with AI alone (ICER $54,451). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated RT alone to be cost-effective in 50% of trials, with combination therapy in 36% and AI alone in 14%.

CONCLUSIONS

U-WBI alone appears the more cost-effective de-escalation strategy for these low-risk patients, compared with AI alone. Combining U-WBI and AI appears more costly but may be preferred by some patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of No Adjuvant Therapy Versus Partial Breast Irradiation Alone Versus Combined Treatment for Treatment of Low-Risk DCIS: A Microsimulation

PURPOSE

Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ who undergo partial mastectomy remains controversial, particularly for low-risk patients (60 years or older, estrogen-positive, tumor extent < 2.5 cm, grade 1 or 2, and margins ≥ 3 mm). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing three strategies: no adjuvant treatment after surgery, a five-fraction course of accelerated partial breast irradiation using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (accelerated partial breast irradiation [APBI]-alone), or APBI plus an aromatase inhibitor for 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcomes including local recurrence, distant metastases, and survival as well as toxicity data were modeled by a patient-level Markov microsimulation model, which were validated against trial data. Costs of treatment and possible adverse events were included from the societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, adjusted to 2019 US dollars and extracted from Medicare reimbursement data. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on utilities extracted from the literature.

RESULTS

No adjuvant therapy was the least costly approach ($5,744), followed by APBI-alone ($11,070); combined therapy was costliest ($16,052). Adjuvant therapy resulted in slightly higher QALYs (no adjuvant, 11.320; APBI-alone, 11.343; and combination, 11.381). In the base case, no treatment was the cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $239,109/QALY for APBI-alone and $171,718/QALY for combined therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for combined therapy compared with APBI-alone was $131,949. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that no therapy was cost effective (defined as $100,000/QALY of lower) in 63% of trials, APBI-alone in 19%, and the combination in 18%.

CONCLUSION

No adjuvant therapy represents the most cost-effective approach for postmenopausal women 60 years or older who receive partial mastectomy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ.

Lung-Seeking Metastases

Metastases from different cancer types most often affect the lung parenchyma. Moreover, the lungs are among the most frequent sites of growth of metastatic masses of uncertain/unknown lineage of origin. Thus, with regards to pulmonary neoplastic parenchymal nodules, the critical issue is to determine if they are IN the lung or OF the lung. In this review, we highlight the clinical, instrumental and molecular features which characterize lung metastases, mainly focusing on recently advancing and emerging concepts regarding the metastatic niche, inflammation, angiogenesis, immune modulation and gene expression. A novel issue is related to the analysis of biomechanical forces which cooperate in the expansion of tumor masses in the lungs. We here aim to analyze the biological, genetic and pathological features of metastatic lesions to the lungs, here referred to as site of metastatic growth. This point should be a crucial part of the algorithm for a proper diagnostic and therapeutic approach in the era of personalized medicine.

The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of Primary Tumour Identification in Metastatic Cancer of Unknown Primary Tumour: A Population-Based Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Several genomic tests have recently been developed to identify the primary tumour in cancer of unknown primary tumour (CUP). However, the value of identifying the primary tumour in clinical practice for CUP patients remains questionable and difficult to prove in randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the clinical and economic value of primary tumour identification in CUP using a retrospective matched cohort study.

METHODS

We used the Manitoba Cancer Registry to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 2002 and 2011. We defined patients as having CUP if their primary tumour was found 6 months or more after initial diagnosis or never found during the course of disease. Otherwise, we considered patients to have metastatic cancer from a known primary tumour (CKP). We linked all patients with Manitoba Health databases to estimate their direct healthcare costs using a phase-of-care approach. We used the propensity score matching technique to match each CUP patient with a CKP patient on clinicopathologic characteristics. We compared treatment patterns, overall survival (OS) and phase-specific healthcare costs between the two patient groups and assessed association with OS using Cox regression adjustment.

RESULTS

Of 5839 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer, 395 had CUP (6.8%); 1:1 matching created a matched group of 395 CKP patients. CUP patients were less likely to receive surgery, radiation, hormonal and targeted therapy and more likely to receive cytotoxic empiric chemotherapeutic agents. Having CUP was associated with reduced OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.31; 95% confidence interval 1.1-1.58), but this lost statistical significance with adjustment for treatment differences. CUP patients had a significant increase in the mean net cost of initial diagnostic workup before diagnosis and a significant reduction in the mean net cost of continuing cancer care.

CONCLUSION

Identifying the primary tumour in CUP patients might enable the use of more effective therapies, improve OS and allow more efficient allocation of healthcare resources.

Pretreatment costs of care and time to initial treatment for patients with cancer of unknown primary

AIM

Time to treatment and pretreatment costs may be affected by unknown primary tumor site.

METHODS

This retrospective study used electronic medical record data from patients in ten US community oncology practices. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) or known metastatic solid tumor, and presented between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2014.

RESULTS

Patients with CUP (n = 294) had a longer interval than non-CUP patients (n = 92) from presentation to treatment initiation (1.18 vs 0.49 months, p < 0.0001), and had higher pretreatment costs (US$27,882 vs US$20,449, p = 0.0075). When analyzed as monthly cost, the difference between groups in log-cost per month was nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

Higher pretreatment costs in CUP patients appeared attributable to significantly longer time to initiation of therapy.

The clinical significance of occult gynecologic primary tumours in metastatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the frequency of occult gynecologic primary tumours (gpts) in patients with metastatic cancer from an uncertain primary and evaluated the effect on disease management and overall survival (os).

METHODS

We used Manitoba administrative health databases to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer during 2002-2011. We defined patients as having an "occult" primary tumour if the primary was classified at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis. Otherwise, we considered patients to have "obvious" primaries. We then compared clinicopathologic and treatment characteristics and 2-year os for women with occult and with obvious gpts. We used Cox regression adjustment and propensity score methods to assess the effect on os of having an occult gpt.

RESULTS

Among the 5953 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer, occult primary tumours were more common in women (n = 285 of 2552, 11.2%) than in men (n = 244 of 3401, 7.2%). In women, gpts were the most frequent occult primary tumours (n = 55 of 285, 19.3%). Compared with their counterparts having obvious gpts, women with occult gpts (n = 55) presented with similar histologic and metastatic patterns but received fewer gynecologic diagnostic examinations during diagnostic work-up. Women with occult gpts were less likely to undergo surgery, waited longer for radiotherapy, and received a lesser variety of chemotherapeutic agents. Having an occult compared with an obvious gpt was associated with decreased os (hazard ratio: 1.62; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 2.35). Similar results were observed in adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with metastatic cancer from an uncertain primary, gpts constitute the largest clinical entity. Accurate diagnosis of occult gpts early in the course of metastatic cancer might lead to more effective treatment decisions and improved survival outcomes.

The Clinical Significance of Occult Gastrointestinal Primary Tumours in Metastatic Cancer: A Population Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to estimate the incidence of occult gastrointestinal (GI) primary tumours in patients with metastatic cancer of uncertain primary origin and evaluate their influence on treatments and overall survival (OS).

Materials and Methods

We used population heath data from Manitoba, Canada to identify all patients initially diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 2002 and 2011. We defined patients to have “occult” primary tumour if the primary was found at least 6 months after initial diagnosis. Otherwise, we considered primary tumours as “obvious.” We used propensity-score methods to match each patient with occult GI tumour to four patients with obvious GI tumour on all known clinicopathologic features. We compared treatments and 2-year survival data between the two patient groups and assessed treatment effect on OS using Cox regression adjustment.

Results

Eighty-three patients had occult GI primary tumours, accounting for 17.6% of men and 14% of women with metastatic cancer of uncertain primary. A 1:4 matching created a matched group of 332 patients with obvious GI primary tumour. Occult cases compared to the matched group were less likely to receive surgical interventions and targeted biological therapy, and more likely to receive cytotoxic empiric chemotherapeutic agents. Having an occult GI tumour was associated with reduced OS and appeared to be a nonsignificant independent predictor of OS when adjusting for treatment differences.

Conclusion

GI tumours are the most common occult primary tumours in men and the second most common in women. Patients with occult GI primary tumours are potentially being undertreated with available GI site-specific and targeted therapies.