Survival outcome and cost-effectiveness with docetaxel and paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a population-based evaluation

A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Albumin Paclitaxel versus Docetaxel in the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Objective

To use meta-analysis to systematically compare the efficacy and adverse reaction rates of albumin paclitaxel and docetaxel in the treatment of breast cancer.

Methods

This study included Chinese and English literature studies on clinical controlled studies of albumin paclitaxel and docetaxel in the treatment of breast cancer by searching CNKI, Weipu, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two researchers participated in the screening of the literature, used the inclusion and exclusion criteria as reference indicators, extracted relevant data, and used the software RevMan5.3 to conduct quality evaluation and meta-analysis of the literature.

Results

4 literature stuides were retrieved that met the inclusion criteria, with 243 study subjects. The included literature had a lower risk of bias. Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the docetaxel group, the protein paclitaxel group had significant differences in objective effective rate (ORR) (OR = 1.56, 95% CI (0.80, 3.03), P=0.19), complete remission (CR) (OR = 1.79, 95% CI (0.96, 3.35), P=0.07), partial remission (PR) (OR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.53, 1.47), P=0.62), nausea (OR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.51, 1.74), P=0.84), and vomiting (OR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.45, 1.78) P=0.76). The reason may be that the number of literatures included in this study is small or the sample size is insufficient. However, it had an advantage in the incidence of neutropenia (OR = 0.38, 95% CI (0.16, 0.88), P=0.02), and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant.

Conclusion

Albumin paclitaxel treatment can better reduce the incidence of neutropenia in breast cancer patients and is of great significance to the safety of breast cancer patients.

First line Immunotherapy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is incorporated increasingly in first line treatments protocols. Multiple phase 3 studies have tested different medications targeting programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), with or without chemotherapy. The inclusion criteria differ between the various clinical trials, including the cut-off levels of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, and the tumor histology (squamous or non-squamous). Patients with tumor expression levels of PD-L1 ≥ 50% are candidates for treatment with single agent Pembrolizumab or Atezolizumab. Patients with PD-L1 < 50% are candidates for immunotherapy with pembrolizumab as a single agent if PL-1 > 1%; immunotherapy doublet, Nivolumab and Ipilimumab, or single agent immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy. Here we review phase 3 clinical trials utilizing immunotherapy in the first line for treatment of NSCLC, including Pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-024, KEYNOTE-042, KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407; Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in CHECKMATE-227 and CHECKMATE 9LA; and Atezolizumab in IMpower110, IMpower130 and IMpower150.

Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review

Economic evaluations using Real World Data (RWD) has been increasing in the very recent years, however, this source of information has several advantages and limitations. The aim of this review was to assess the quality of full economic evaluations (EE) developed using RWD. A systematic review was carried out through articles from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Included were studies that employed RWD for both costs and effectiveness. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Of the 14,011 studies identified, 93 were included. Roughly half of the studies were carried out in a hospital setting. The most frequently assessed illnesses were neoplasms while the most evaluated interventions were pharmacological. The main source of costs and effects of RWD were information systems. The most frequent clinical outcome was survival. Some 47% of studies met at least 80% of CHEERS criteria. Studies were conducted with samples of 100-1000 patients or more, were randomized, and those that reported bias controls were those that fulfilled most CHEERS criteria. In conclusion, fewer than half the studies met 80% of the CHEERS checklist criteria.

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.

Median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with censored data

Cost-effectiveness is an essential part of treatment evaluation, in addition to effectiveness. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, a measure called the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is widely utilized, and the mean cost and the mean (quality-adjusted) life years have served as norms to summarize cost and effectiveness for a study population. Recently, the median-based ICER was proposed for complementary or sensitivity analysis purposes. In this article, we extend this method when some data are censored.

First-line trastuzumab plus taxane-based chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: cost-minimization analysis

AIM

To carry out a cost-minimization analysis including a comparison of the costs arising from first-line treatment by trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus trastuzumab plus paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with human epidermal growth receptor 2-postive metastatic breast cancer who were treated at Besançon University Hospital and Saint Vincent private hospital between 2001 and 2010 by first-line therapy containing trastuzumab plus taxane were retrospectively studied. Economic analysis took into account costs related to drugs, hospitalization, and healthcare travel.

RESULTS

Progression-free survival difference between the two treatments was not significant (p = 0.65). First-line treatment by trastuzumab plus taxane was estimated at approximately €68,000 (p = 0.74). The drug costs represented around 70-75% of the total cost, mainly related to the use of trastuzumab.

CONCLUSION

Our economic analysis shows that although the costs of the two trastuzumab plus taxane regimens are similar, they may contribute to the on-going debate about the availability and use of innovative chemotherapy drugs, in particular in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer with new therapies such as trastuzumab-DM1 and pertuzumab.

Meta-analysis of phase III trials of docetaxel alone or in combination with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer

Purpose

Whether combination chemotherapy offers an advantage over sequential therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is still an unsettled issue. Polychemotherapy regimens containing taxanes has been shown to increase overall survival (OS), time to tumor progression (TTP), and overall response rate (ORR) when compared with regimens that did not contain a taxanes, while taxane-based doublets have a statistically significant benefit over single-agent taxane only for progression-free survival. However, the term “taxanes” generally includes both paclitaxel and docetaxel, drugs with different clinical activity. Aim of this work is to compare OS, TTP, and ORR in patients with MBC receiving docetaxel alone or in combination with chemotherapy using a formal meta-analysis.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of all published trials comparing docetaxel alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents in MBC.

Results

Three randomized clinical trials including 1,313 patients were retrieved. A significant reduction of risk ratio was found in TTP (P ≤ 0.0001) but not in OS (P = 0.48) or ORR (P = 0.10) for patients treated with a chemotherapy agent plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone. Treatment with docetaxel alone is associated with a lower incidence of grade 3 diarrhea and stomatitis (diarrhea, P = 0.011; stomatitis, P = 0.0004).

Conclusion

Combination chemotherapy regimens with docetaxel show a statistically significant advantage for TTP, but not for OS and ORR in MBC. This review confirms that it is unlikely that any single agent or combination chemotherapy regimen will emerge as superior in MBC, due to its heterogeneous nature.

The economic burden of metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of literature from developed countries

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer, the most common malignant cancer among women in Western countries, has poor prognosis following metastasis. New therapies potentially extend survival, but their value is questioned when benefits are incremental and expensive. The objective of our study was to understand the economic impact of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and its treatment, and to evaluate the designs of these studies.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE-indexed, English-language literature, identifying 31 articles on the economic evaluation of MBC in 10 developed countries, including studies of per-patient costs, gross national costs, and cost-effectiveness models. We also included health technology assessments (HTAs) from government and regulatory agencies.

RESULTS

Total per-patient costs of MBC are only available for Sweden ($17,301-$48,169 annually, depending on patient age (2005 USD)). Most economic analyses of per-patient direct costs originate from the US; across all countries, data indicate that this burden is substantial. Gross national costs of MBC are available only for the UK (cost of incident MBC cases is estimated to be $22 million annually (2002 GBP)). Many cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that a number of new and established treatments are cost-effective compared to standard care in various countries, but many offer small increments in survival. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, capecitabine, and nab-paclitaxel has been evaluated in many recent studies.

CONCLUSION

Most economic evaluations of MBC have utilized secondary rather than primary data, and have used scenarios and assumptions which may be inaccurate or outdated. The quality of evidence disseminated to decision-makers could be improved by adherence to best practices in cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost effectiveness of cytotoxic and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a critical and systematic review

Breast cancer is the leading cancer type diagnosed among women in Western countries. Despite great advances in cancer therapies, many of these patients develop non-curable metastases. The objective of cancer treatment in the metastatic setting is mainly to control symptoms and to prolong survival. The selection of the optimal chemotherapeutic regimen is affected by performance status, tumour biology, site and extent of the disease and the exposure to prior therapies. Recent developments in new kinds of cancer drugs have contributed not only to immense progress in clinical outcomes but also to dramatically increased treatment-related health costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a type of economic evaluation that compares costs and health outcomes of alternative intervention strategies in a systematic way. In this review, a systematic literature search was performed and the evidence on the cost effectiveness of conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer was explored. Cost-effectiveness/-utility analysis of treatment regimens for metastatic breast cancer were identified using literature and reference searches (MEDLINE). Published reports on conventional and targeted cancer therapies were scrutinized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were abstracted. Furthermore, the quality of reporting, as well as methodological and modeling issues, were extensively discussed. From full-text article reviews, six cost-effectiveness analyses on conventional therapies and seven studies on targeted therapies were included. Eight analyses were conducted in European countries, three in the US and two in Canada. The economic models were primarily (69%) based on clinical trial data. Results from sensitivity analyses and study perspectives were reported by all studies. Discount rates were mentioned in five articles (39%). The methods of reporting costs and effects varied considerably, as did trial design across conventional chemotherapies, which made it difficult to compare those analyses. The pharmacoeconomic studies came to different conclusions. The actual clinical evidence does not suggest one conventional chemotherapy regimen as superior. Studies on cytotoxic agents showed mainly favourable cost-effectiveness ratios. Targeted therapies indicated both favourable and non-favourable ratios. Currently, trastuzumab is the only antibody-based targeted therapy that is established in the clinic for the metastatic setting.

An economic evaluation of docetaxel and paclitaxel regimens in metastatic breast cancer in the UK

Paclitaxel and docetaxel have been available for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) since the 1990s. However, until very recently, comparisons between these two drugs have been difficult due to lack of direct comparative clinical evidence and differences in trial patient populations. To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing docetaxel with paclitaxel regimens in the treatment of MBC previously treated with an anthracycline from the perspective of the UK NHS. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model to compare taxanes in MBC patients who had progressed after treatment with an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen: docetaxel 100 mg/m2 1-hour intravenous (IV) infusion every 21 days versus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 3-hour IV infusion every 21 days (Pac3w). In parallel, additional analyses were performed versus paclitaxel administered in 1-weekly cycles (Pac1w), and a nano albumin-bound form of paclitaxel (Nab-P) given every 3 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events used in the model were derived from a randomized trial directly comparing docetaxel with Pac3w; the comparisons of docetaxel versus the other two paclitaxel regimens were indirect, using patient-level data from a trial comparing Pac3w with Pac1w, and from the published literature comparing Pac3w with Nab-P. Utility values for response, progression and adverse events were derived from the literature. Direct treatment costs related to progression, best supportive care and adverse events were estimated using clinical trials data, published literature, NHS reference costs and published drug prices. The estimated costs of growth colony-stimulating factors and blood transfusion were also included in the model. The model was used to predict the expected total costs ( pound, year 2005-6 values), QALYs gained, incremental cost/life-year gained (LY) and cost/QALY over a 10-year time period. In the base-case analysis, docetaxel improved QALYs by 0.33, 0.29 and 0.22 compared with Pac3w, Pac1w and Nab-P, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for docetaxel were pound 12 032/QALY versus Pac3w, pound 4583/QALY versus Pac1w and pound 14 ,694/QALY versus Nab-P. The ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratios for PFS and OS between the comparators, the drug cost of initial treatment and the treatment costs after progression. Taking into account parameter uncertainty, and comparing all four treatments simultaneously, at a willingness to pay of pound 20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of docetaxel being the most cost-effective treatment was around 70%. In the base-case scenario, docetaxel compared with Pac3w is estimated to have a cost-effectiveness ratio that falls within the acceptable threshold in the UK. The study also suggests that docetaxel may be cost effective versus Pac1w and Nab-P, although there is more uncertainty around these findings.