High-Dose Chemotherapy for Patients With High-Risk Breast Cancer: A Clinical and Economic Assessment Using a Quality-Adjusted Survival Analysis

[Impact of Her2 and BRCA1/2 status in high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cells transplantation in the treatment of breast cancer: The Institut Paoli Calmettes' experience]

INTRODUCTION

Studies evaluating chemotherapy high dose chemotherapy with autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HDC-ACSH) in the treatment of metastatic (MBC), locally advanced (LABC) and inflammatory (IBC) breast cancer have in common lack of biomarker information, in particular the HER2 status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive female patients treated for breast cancer with HDC and AHSCT at Institut Paoli Calmettes between 2003 and 2012 were included. Patients were categorized in three subtypes based on hormonal receptor (HR) and HER2 status of the primary tumor: luminal, (HR+/HER2-), HER2 (HER2+, any HR) and triple negative (TN) (HER2- and HR-). The main objective was the analysis of overall survival (OS) according to the IHC subtypes.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seventy-seven patients were included. For MBC, the TN subtype appeared to have the worst prognosis with a median OS of 19.68 months (95 % CI 11.76-44.4) compared to 44.64 months (95 % CI 40.32-67.56) for the luminal subtype and a median OS not reached for the HER2 subtype (P<0.01). For IBC, HER2 subgroup appeared to have the best prognosis with a 5-year OS of 89 % (95 % CI 64-97) compared to 57 % (95 % CI 33-76) for the TN subgroup (HR 5.38, 95 % CI 1.14-25.44; P=0.034). For CSLA, luminal subgroup appeared to have the best prognosis with a 5-year OS of 92 % (95 % CI 71-98) against 75 % (95 % CI 46-90) for HER 2 subtype and 70 % (95 %CI 97-88) for TN subtype (P=0.301).

CONCLUSION

The HDC-ACSH does not change the prognosis value of IHC subtype in breast cancer patients.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

High-Dose Chemotherapy and Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation as Adjuvant Treatment in High-Risk Breast Cancer: Data from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Registry

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess toxicity and efficacy of adjuvant high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) in 583 high-risk breast cancer (BC) patients (>3 positive nodes) who were transplanted between 1995 and 2005 in Europe. All patients received surgery before transplant, and 55 patients (9.5%) received neoadjuvant treatment before surgery. Median age was 47.1 years, 57.3% of patients were premenopausal at treatment, 56.5% had endocrine-responsive tumors, 19.5% had a human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumor, and 72.4% had ≥10 positive lymph nodes at surgery. Seventy-nine percent received a single HDC procedure. Overall transplant-related mortality was 1.9%, at .9% between 2001 and 2005, whereas secondary tumor-related mortality was .9%. With a median follow-up of 120 months, overall survival and disease-free survival rates at 5 and 10 years in the whole population were 75% and 64% and 58% and 44%, respectively. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that rates of overall survival were significantly better in patients with endocrine-responsive tumors, <10 positive lymph nodes, and smaller tumor size. HER2 status did not affect survival probability. Adjuvant HDC with AHSCT has a low mortality rate and provides impressive long-term survival rates in patients with high-risk BC. Our results suggest that this treatment modality should be considered in selected high-risk BC patients and further investigated in clinical trials.

Integration of PKPD relationships into benefit-risk analysis

AIM

Despite the continuous endeavour to achieve high standards in medical care through effectiveness measures, a quantitative framework for the assessment of the benefit-risk balance of new medicines is lacking prior to regulatory approval. The aim of this short review is to summarise the approaches currently available for benefit-risk assessment. In addition, we propose the use of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) modelling as the pharmacological basis for evidence synthesis and evaluation of novel therapeutic agents.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search has been performed using MESH terms in PubMed, in which articles describing benefit-risk assessment and modelling and simulation were identified. In parallel, a critical review of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is presented as a tool for characterising a drug's safety and efficacy profile.

RESULTS

A definition of benefits and risks has been proposed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), in which qualitative and quantitative elements are included. However, in spite of the value of MCDA as a quantitative method, decisions about benefit-risk balance continue to rely on subjective expert opinion. By contrast, a model-informed approach offers the opportunity for a more comprehensive evaluation of benefit-risk balance before extensive evidence is generated in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefit-risk balance should be an integral part of the risk management plan and as such considered before marketing authorisation. Modelling and simulation can be incorporated into MCDA to support the evidence synthesis as well evidence generation taking into account the underlying correlations between favourable and unfavourable effects. In addition, it represents a valuable tool for the optimization of protocol design in effectiveness trials.

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST): patient-reported outcome or mathematical model? A systematic review in cancer

OBJECTIVE

Successful cancer treatment is defined as an increase in overall survival and/or progression-free survival. Despite their importance, these metrics omit patient quality of life. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) was developed to adjust survival gained, accounting for quality of life. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the methods reported in cancer literature to determine Q-TWiST values and how these are currently translated to the clinic.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of studies indexed on MEDLINE and Web of Science through April 2013. Cancer studies that measured Q-TWiST either as a primary outcome or retrospectively and determined utility coefficients from a patient population were identified, and their methods reviewed to determine how the utility coefficient was calculated. Additionally, other relevant factors such as definitions of health states and significant findings were collected and summarized.

RESULTS

Out of 284 studies, 11 were identified that calculated patient-defined utility coefficients. Several methods to determine utility coefficients were reported, and multiple definitions of health state toxicity were applied. Of these studies, seven reported significant differences (p < 0.05) in quality-adjusted survival. No studies, however, directly discussed the clinical relevance of their findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, Q-TWiST is utilized as a mathematical theory rather than a clinical tool. Standardization of terminology plus reliability and validity testing of determining both utility coefficients and time frame definitions must be performed before Q-TWiST can become clinically useful to physicians and patients alike for making treatment decisions.

Adjuvant high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell support for high-risk primary breast cancer: results from the Italian national registry

The efficacy of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous hemopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (AHPCT) for breast cancer (BC) patients has been an area of intense controversy among the medical oncology community. The aim of this study was to assess toxicity and efficacy of this procedure in a large cohort of high-risk primary BC patients who underwent AHPCT in Italy. A total of 1183 patients receiving HDC for high-risk BC (HRBC) (>3 positive nodes) were identified in the Italian registry. The median age was 46 years, 62% of patients were premenopausal at treatment, 60.1% had endocrine-responsive tumors, and 20.7% had a human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumor. The median number of positive lymph nodes (LN) at surgery was 15, with 71.5% of patients having ≥ 10 positive nodes. Seventy-three percent received an alkylating agent-based HDC as a single procedure, whereas 27% received epirubicin or mitoxantrone-containing HDC, usually within a multitransplantation program. The source of stem cells was peripheral blood in the vast majority of patients. Transplantation-related mortality was .8%, whereas late cardiac and secondary tumor-related mortality were around 1%, overall. With a median follow-up of 79 months, median disease-free and overall survival (OS) in the entire population were 101 and 134 months, respectively. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that OS was significantly better in patients with endocrine-responsive tumors and in patients receiving multiple transplantation procedures. HER2 status did not affect survival probability. The size of the primary tumor and number of involved LN negatively affected OS. Adjuvant HDC with AHPCT has a low mortality rate and provides impressive long-term survival rates in patients with high-risk primary BC. Our results suggest that this treatment modality should be proposed in selected HRBC patients and further investigated in clinical trials.

Critical issues on high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation in breast cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (AHPCT) for high-risk (HR) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is no longer an option.

AREAS COVERED

An expert panel including medical oncologists and hematologists produce an opinion paper on the use of HDC and AHPCT in BC patients and they explain why they believe that; despite inconclusive results thus far, this treatment should have an ongoing role in breast cancer management under clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

HDC with AHPCT has become a safe treatment modality and an advantage in disease-free survival has been observed in most of the studies with HDC, with the caveat that today, even a limited relapse-free survival and progression-free survival benefit is sufficient for the approval of new antineoplastic agents. Moreover, in HRBC, an overall survival benefit by HDC could be achieved in the HER2-ve and triple-negative populations and, in this setting, HDC with AHPCT represents a therapeutic option that can be proposed to well-informed patients. In MBC, the HDC approach should be investigated further in selected patients with HER2-ve, chemosensitive disease. This paper is not intended to give any conclusion, but rather to open a debate on the value of HDC in HR and MBC.

Long-term survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving intensified chemotherapy and stem cell rescue: data from the Italian registry

The median survival of women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is 18-24 months, and fewer than 5% are alive and disease free at 5 years. We report toxicity and survival in a cohort of MBC patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) with autologous hematopoietic SCT (AHSCT) in Italy between 1990 and 2005. Data set for survival analysis has been obtained for 415 patients. Clinical parameters including probability of transplant-related mortality (TRM), PFS and OS. With a median follow-up of 27 months (range 0-172), OS and PFS at 5 and 10 years in the whole population were 47/23 and 32/14%, respectively. A total 239 patients are alive with a median follow-up of 33 months (range 2-174). Survival was significantly more pronounced in patients harboring hormone receptor positive tumors (P=0.028), without visceral metastases (P=0.009) and in women with chemosensitive disease (P<0.0001). Sixty eight patients (20.4%) who received HDC in partial response, stable or progressive disease underwent conversion to CR. TRM was 2.5% overall and 1.3% since 2000. Our findings suggest that could be a role for HDC and AHSCT in delaying disease progression and possibly cure a subset of MBC patient harboring chemosensitive tumors.