Cost of Disease Progression in Patients with Metastatic Breast, Lung, and Colorectal Cancer

Cost of early progression: patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Aim: Compare healthcare costs for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) with and without progression and estimate costs of progression. Materials & methods: Retrospective claims analysis (2015-2020) from adults with EGFRm mNSCLC initiating EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Adjusted costs for 12 months were compared (with vs without progression) and cumulative costs for early versus late progression were predicted over 36 months. Results: A total of 228 patients with EGFRm mNSCLC were included. Patients with progression within 12 months incurred significantly higher total costs despite lower treatment costs (vs without progression). Medical costs were significantly higher among early versus late progressors. Conclusion: These data may aid providers aiming to administer quality care in a cost-efficient way.

Cost of disease progression among US patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer

Aim: The objectives were to investigate the differences in per patient per month (PPPM) healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among commercially insured and Medicare Advantage patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who experience disease progression in 12 months compared with those who don't investigate the impact of progression timing on cumulative healthcare costs. Patients & methods: This claims-based study included patients diagnosed with mBC between 1 January 2013 and 30 April 2020 and received HER2-targeted therapy. Patients were categorized as progressed or nonprogressed. For objective one, monthly HCRU and costs were assessed for up to two lines of therapy (LOTs). Data were summarized descriptively and compared using a generalized linear model (GLM). For objective two, patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were assessed and cumulative healthcare costs were estimated in the 3 years following the start of LOT1 or LOT2 using a GLM and Kaplan-Meier weighting. Results: Among the 4113 patients in the study sample, 3406 had at least 12 months of follow-up (or less if due to death). Compared with nonprogressed patients, progressed patients had higher mean PPPM healthcare costs (LOT1: $22,014 vs $18,372, p < 0.001; LOT2: $19,643 vs $16,863, p = 0.001), and HCRU, including number of emergency room visits and inpatient stays (both p < 0.001) in the 12 months following LOT start. Progressed patients had higher 3-year mean cumulative healthcare costs than nonprogressed patients following LOT1 and LOT2 and this difference was greater for patients who progressed earlier. Conclusion: Disease progression was associated with significant increases in HCRU and costs. Delays in progression were associated with lower cumulative healthcare costs. Earlier use of more clinically effective treatments to delay progression may reduce the economic burden among these patients.

Value of next generation sequencing (NGS) testing in advanced cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The availability of targeted therapies for oncology patients is increasing. Available genomic tests to identify treatment-eligible patients include single gene tests and gene panel tests, including the whole-exome, whole-transcriptome OncoExTra test. We assessed the costs and clinical benefits of test choice.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to evaluate test choice in patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Treatment pathways were based on NCCN guidelines and medical expert opinion. Inputs were derived from published literature. Annual economic results and lifetime clinical results with OncoExTra testing were projected per-tested-patient and compared with single gene testing and no testing. Separately, results were estimated for a US health plan without the OncoExTra test and with its use in 5% of patients.

RESULTS

Compared with no genomic testing, OncoExTra test use increased costs by $4,915 per patient; however, 82%-92% of individuals across tumour types were identified as eligible for targeted therapy or a clinical trial. Compared with single gene testing, OncoExTra test use decreased costs by $9,966 per-patient-tested while increasing use of approved or investigational targeted therapies by 20%. When considering a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 858 patients were eligible for genomic testing. Using the OncoExTra test in 5% of those eligible, per-member per-month costs decreased by $0.003, ranging from cost-savings of $0.026 in NSCLC patients to a $0.009 increase in prostate cancer patients. Cost-savings were driven by reduced treatment costs with increased clinical trial enrolment and reduced direct and indirect medical costs associated with targeted treatments.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include the required simplifications in modelling complex conditions that may not fully reflect evolving real-world testing and treatment patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to single-gene testing, results indicate that using next generation sequencing test such as OncoExTra identified more actionable alterations, leading to improved outcomes and reduced costs.

Budget impact analysis of introducing fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the United States from the payer perspective

AIMS

Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM).

RESULTS

The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population.

CONCLUSIONS

Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.

Economic burden of lung cancer in Morocco: A cost of illness study

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the most common cancer in men and the second most common cancer in women. It is associated with substantial economic impact in terms of direct and indirect costs. The main objective of this study is to estimate the direct medical cost of lung cancer management in Morocco MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-of-illness study was conducted among patients treated at the Mohammed VI Center of Cancer (Casablanca) in 2019. The costs were estimated from the societal perspective using a bottom-up approach. The materials and procedures used were identified and quantified retrospectively from the information system and files. Their monetary value was calculated according to official prices published by the national health insurance agency. The horizon time adopted was 12 months.

RESULTS

The study included 271 patients, with an average age of 62.5 ± 9.5 years. Of these, 93.4 % were men and 92.1 % were former smokers. In terms of cancer staging, 68.3 % of patients were in stage IV while 28.8 % were in stage III. Adenocarcinoma was present in 43.5 % of cases. Patients underwent an average of 10.6 ± 5.1 radiological investigations, 56.1 ± 30.9 biological tests, and 24.1 ± 11.7 consultations. The average direct medical cost was 4455.3 USD (95 % CI: 4037.4-4873.2). Chemotherapy accounted for 19.9 % of the total cost, while radiological investigations and drugs accounted for 18.7 % and 17.6 %, respectively. Diagnostic tests and radiotherapy each accounted for 7.6 % of the total cost, while biological tests accounted for 7.5 % and hospitalizations accounted for 7.1 %. The cost was statistically higher in young patients (p = 0.017), in patients with adenocarcinoma (p < 0.0001), in patients with stage II tumor (< 0.00001), in patients who have undergone surgery (p = 0.002), chemotherapy (p < 0.0001), radiotherapy (p < 0.001) and in those without metastases (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These results provide evidence to support the ratification of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the full adherence of the Kingdom of Morocco to the MPOWER measures.

Socioeconomic status and inequities in treatment initiation and survival among patients with cancer, 2011-2022

BACKGROUND

Lower neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with suboptimal cancer care and reduced survival. Most studies examining cancer inequities across area-level socioeconomic status tend to use less granular or unidimensional measures and pre-date the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we examined the association of area-level socioeconomic status on real-world treatment initiation and overall survival among adults with 20 common cancers.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record-derived deidentified data (Flatiron Health Research Database, 2011-2022) linked to US Census Bureau data from the American Community Survey (2015-2019). Area-level socioeconomic status quintiles (based on a measure incorporating income, home values, rental costs, poverty, blue-collar employment, unemployment, and education information) were computed from the US population and applied to patients based on their mailing address. Associations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for diagnosis year, age, sex, performance status, stage, and cancer type.

RESULTS

This cohort included 291 419 patients (47.7% female; median age = 68 years). Patients from low-SES areas were younger and more likely to be Black (21.9% vs 3.3%) or Latinx (8.4% vs 3.0%) than those in high-SES areas. Living in low-SES areas (vs high) was associated with lower treatment rates (hazard ratio = 0.94 [95% confidence interval = 0.93 to 0.95]) and reduced survival (median real-world overall survival = 21.4 vs 29.5 months, hazard ratio = 1.20 [95% confidence interval = 1.18 to 1.22]). Treatment and survival inequities were observed in 9 and 19 cancer types, respectively. Area-level socioeconomic inequities in treatment and survival remained statistically significant in the COVID-19 era (after March 2020).

CONCLUSION

To reduce inequities in cancer outcomes, efforts that target marginalized, low-socioeconomic status neighborhoods are necessary.

MV-CVIB: microbiome-based multi-view convolutional variational information bottleneck for predicting metastatic colorectal cancer

Introduction

Imbalances in gut microbes have been implied in many human diseases, including colorectal cancer (CRC), inflammatory bowel disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, autism, and Alzheimer's disease. Compared with other human diseases, CRC is a gastrointestinal malignancy with high mortality and a high probability of metastasis. However, current studies mainly focus on the prediction of colorectal cancer while neglecting the more serious malignancy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In addition, high dimensionality and small samples lead to the complexity of gut microbial data, which increases the difficulty of traditional machine learning models.

Methods

To address these challenges, we collected and processed 16S rRNA data and calculated abundance data from patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer (non-mCRC) and mCRC. Different from the traditional health-disease classification strategy, we adopted a novel disease-disease classification strategy and proposed a microbiome-based multi-view convolutional variational information bottleneck (MV-CVIB).

Results

The experimental results show that MV-CVIB can effectively predict mCRC. This model can achieve AUC values above 0.9 compared to other state-of-the-art models. Not only that, MV-CVIB also achieved satisfactory predictive performance on multiple published CRC gut microbiome datasets.

Discussion

Finally, multiple gut microbiota analyses were used to elucidate communities and differences between mCRC and non-mCRC, and the metastatic properties of CRC were assessed by patient age and microbiota expression.

Work productivity among patients with metastatic breast cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To characterize workplace productivity measures in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) using line of therapy (LOT) and first line (1 L) regimen.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using IBM's MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and Health and Productivity Management (HPM) databases. The cohort included patients diagnosed with mBC who initiated 1 L treatment between 2/3/2015 and 6/30/2018. Productivity was measured using days absent from work and short- and long-term disability (STD, LTD) claims by LOT and 1 L regimen (any cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor [CDK4/6i], endocrine monotherapy, chemotherapy only, or other anti-cancer therapy [OACT]). LOT was defined using regimen-based progression.

RESULTS

Overall, 548 patients were included; 148, 129, 145, and 126 received endocrine monotherapy, CDK4/6i, chemotherapy only, and OACT, respectively. The rate of LTD increased significantly by 3.1 and 2.6 times from 1 L to second line (2 L) and from 2 L to subsequent lines, respectively. Patients receiving 1 L chemotherapy had 2.4- and 2.7-times odds of using STD and LTD compared to patients receiving 1 L CDK4/6i.

CONCLUSIONS

Regimen-based disease progression is associated with increased use of STD and LTD. Patients with a 1 L regimen of chemotherapy have significantly higher odds of using STD or LTD than patients using 1 L CDK4/6i.

Increased healthcare costs by later stage cancer diagnosis

Background

Cancer represents a significant source of disease burden in the United States (US), both clinically and economically. Diagnosis and treatment of cancer at earlier stages may reduce this burden. To better understand potential impacts of earlier diagnosis, healthcare costs among patients with cancer were assessed by cancer type and stage at diagnosis.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted using Optum’s de-identified Integrated Claims-Clinical data set with Enriched Oncology, which includes data from Medicare Advantage and commercially insured members. Adult members newly diagnosed with solid tumor cancers, cancer stage at diagnosis (diagnosed 1/1/2016–6/30/2020), and continuous enrollment for at least one month post diagnosis were identified. Patients with breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer were reported. Mean standardized costs (2020 USD) were calculated in each month on an annual and cumulative basis through four years post-cancer diagnosis. In each month, costs were calculated for those with continuous enrollment and no death reported in the month. Mean annual cost per patient was estimated by summing month one to 12 mean costs and stratifying by stage at cancer diagnosis; annual year one to four costs were summed to determine cumulative costs.

Results

Among members diagnosed 2016–2020 with breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, ovarian, or prostate cancer, 20,422 eligible members were identified. Mean costs increased by stage of diagnosis across all cancers at the annual and cumulative level through year four post diagnosis. Cumulative mean costs grew over time at a relatively similar rate across stages I to III and more dramatically in stage IV, except for cervical and lung cancer where the rate was relatively stable or slightly fluctuated across stages and ovarian cancer where stages III and IV both increased more sharply compared to stages I and II.

Conclusions

Mean annual and cumulative healthcare costs through year four post cancer diagnosis were significantly higher among those diagnosed at later versus earlier cancer stages. The steeper increase in cumulative costs among those diagnosed in stage IV for many cancer types highlights the importance of earlier cancer diagnosis. Earlier cancer diagnosis may enable more efficient treatment, improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08457-6.

Cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer places a significant economic burden on individuals, populations, and health care. However, there is a paucity of information on the costs of the contemporary management of metastatic colorectal cancer. This systematic review aims to review the literature to estimate the direct cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database Guide, EconLit, and grey literature from the 1st of January 2000 to the 1st of February 2020 were all searched for studies reporting the direct costs of treating metastatic colorectal cancer. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Evers' Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 39,489 records were retrieved, and 29 studies were included. Costs of treating metastatic colorectal cancer varied because of the heterogeneity of treatment. Studies reported average costs ranged from $12,346 to $293,461. Studies that included the cost of systemic therapy reported an estimated cost of almost $300,000.

CONCLUSION

The existing evidence indicates that the cost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer places a significant economic burden on healthcare systems despite differences in methodology and treatment heterogeneity. Future research needs to define the cost components of treating metastatic colorectal cancer to improve comparability and examine the relationship between spending, overall survival, and quality of life. Identifying these costs and their impact on health care budgets can help policymakers plan health system expenditure.

The Impact of Surgical Delays on Short- and Long-Term Survival Among Colon Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of surgical delays on short- and long-term survival among colon cancer patients.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing surgery for stage I, II, or III colon cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2010-2016). After categorization by wait times from diagnosis to surgery (<1 week, 1-3 weeks, 3-6 weeks, 6-9 weeks, 9-12 weeks, and >12 weeks), 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival were compared between patients both overall and after stratification by pathological disease stage.

RESULTS

Among 187 394 colon cancer patients, 24.2% waited <1 week, 30.5% waited 1-3 weeks, 29.0% waited 3-6 weeks, 9.7% waited 6-9 weeks, 3.3% waited 9-12 weeks, and 3.3% waited >12 weeks for surgery. Patients undergoing surgery 3-6 weeks after colon cancer diagnosis exhibited the best 30-day mortality (1.3%), 90-day mortality (2.3%), and 5-year overall survival (71.8%) (P < .001 for all). After risk-adjusting for confounders, all wait times beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 5-year overall survival (6-9 weeks: HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15; 9-12 weeks: HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.33; >12 weeks: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.35-1.52; P < .001 for all). Subgroup analysis after stratification by disease stage demonstrated that patients with stage III colon cancer were able to wait up to 9 weeks before exhibiting worse 5-year overall survival, compared to 6 weeks for patients with stage I or II disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Colon cancer patients should undergo surgery 3-6 weeks after diagnosis, as all surgical delays beyond 6 weeks were associated with worse 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and 5-year overall survival.

Estimated impact of COVID-19 on preventive care service delivery: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has caused significant healthcare service disruptions. Surgical backlogs have been estimated but not for other healthcare services. This study aims to estimate the backlog of preventive care services caused by COVID-19.

METHODS

This observational study assessed preventive care screening rates at three primary care clinics in Ottawa, Ontario from March to November 2020 using data from 22,685 electronic medical records. The change in cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, and type 2 diabetes screening rates were crudely estimated using 2016 census data, estimating the volume of key services delayed by COVID-19 across Ontario and Canada.

RESULTS

The mean percentage of patients appropriately screened for cervical cancer decreased by 7.5% (- 0.3% to - 14.7%; 95% CI), colorectal cancer decreased by 8.1% (- 0.3% to - 15.8%; 95% CI), and type 2 diabetes decreased by 4.5% (- 0.2% to - 8.7%; 95% CI). Crude estimates imply 288,000 cervical cancer (11,000 to 565,000; 95% CI), 326,000 colorectal cancer (13,000 to 638,000; 95% CI), and 274,000 type 2 diabetes screenings (13,000 to 535,000; 95% CI) may be overdue in Ontario. Nationally the deficits may be tripled these numbers. Re-opening measures have not reversed these trends.

INTERPRETATION

COVID-19 decreased the delivery of preventive care services, which may cause delayed diagnoses, increased mortality, and increased health care costs. Virtual care and reopening measures have not restored the provision of preventive care services. Electronic medical record data could be leveraged to improve screening via panel management. Additional, system-wide primary care and laboratory capacity will be needed to restore pre-COVID-19 screening rates.

Locoregional therapy patterns and healthcare economic burden of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the USA

Aim:

To examine the locoregional therapy (LRT) patterns and the healthcare economic burden of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the USA.

Patients & methods:

Patients with newly diagnosed HCC were identified from the MarketScan^® databases (1 July 2015–31 May 2018). The LRTs received and all-cause and HCC-related healthcare costs were measured.

Results:

Among 2101 patients with HCC, most received embolization therapy as their first LRT treatment (57.8%, n = 1215); 17.1% (n = 360) received ablative therapy and 8.7% (n = 182) radiation therapy; 16.4% (n = 344) received multiple LRTs. After patients received their first LRT treatment, total all-cause healthcare costs averaged $20,316 per patient per month; 70.7% ($14,359) were HCC related.

Conclusion:

Among newly diagnosed HCC patients treated with LRT in the USA, the economic burden is high.

Real-world burden of illness and unmet need in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma following discontinuation of PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy: A Medicare claims database analysis

BACKGROUND

Several programmed death-1 or death-ligand 1 (PD-1/L1) inhibitors are approved first- or second-line therapies for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC); however, clinical trials show that only ∼20% of patients respond and all ultimately progress. This study elucidated real-world treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and economic burden among Medicare beneficiaries with la/mUC who discontinue PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapies.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective claims analysis of patients aged ≥65 years diagnosed with la/mUC (2015-2017) who initiated and subsequently discontinued PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy (index=date of last administration) using Medicare Fee-for-Service Research Identifiable Files. Included patients had ≥12 months pre- and ≥3 months post-index continuous Medicare enrollment, and were followed until disenrollment, death, or data cutoff.

RESULTS

Among 28,063 patients, 17% (n=4652) received ≥1 PD-1/L1 inhibitor following la/mUC diagnosis. Of these, 791 discontinued PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy and met inclusion criteria (study cohort); 73% male, median age 76 years. Post-discontinuation, 3% received a different PD-1/L1 inhibitor, 46% chemotherapy, and 51% no further systemic treatment. HRU was high during follow-up: 97% had ≥1 outpatient visit and 52% ≥1 hospitalization. Healthcare costs per-patient-per-month were $7153 pre- and $7745 (adjusted) post-index; systemic therapy costs were higher pre- vs. post-index ($2978 vs. $1195) but other costs were higher post-index: hospitalization ($1120 vs. $2200), outpatient ($1437 vs. $2064), hospice ($3 vs. $536), skilled nursing facility ($106 vs. $384).

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of Medicare beneficiaries with la/mUC received no disease-directed therapy post-PD-1/L1 inhibitor treatment. Patients who discontinued PD-1/L1 inhibitor therapy had intensive HRU unrelated to therapy costs, highlighting the significant burden of la/mUC and need for treatments that extend survival.

Preservation of quality of life in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with tucatinib or placebo when added to trastuzumab and capecitabine (HER2CLIMB trial)

AIMS

In HER2CLIMB, tucatinib significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the impact of tucatinib on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in HER2CLIMB.

METHODS

Patients were randomised 2:1 to tucatinib or placebo combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Starting with protocol version 7, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) were administered at day 1 of cycle 1, every two cycles during cycles 3-9, every three cycles during cycle 12 and thereafter and at each patient's 30-day follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Among 364 patients eligible for HR-QoL assessment, 331 (91%) completed ≥1 assessment. EQ-VAS scores were similar for both arms at baseline and maintained throughout treatment. EQ-5D-5L scores were similar between the treatment arms, stable throughout therapy and worsened after discontinuing treatment. Risk of meaningful deterioration (≥7 points) on EQ-VAS was reduced 19% in the tucatinib vs. placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55, 1.18); the median (95% CI) time to deterioration was not reached in the tucatinib arm and was 5.8 months (4.3, -) in the placebo arm. Among patients with brain metastases (n = 164), risk of meaningful deterioration on EQ-VAS was reduced 49% in the tucatinib arm (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.93); the median (95% CI) time to deterioration was not reached in the tucatinib arm and was 5.5 months (4.2, -) in the placebo arm.

CONCLUSIONS

HR-QoL was preserved for patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who were treated with tucatinib added to trastuzumab and capecitabine and maintained longer with tucatinib therapy than without it among those with brain metastases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02614794.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Local Treatment in Oligometastatic Disease

BACKGROUND

In certain malignancies, patients with oligometastatic disease benefit from radical ablative or surgical treatment. The SABR-COMET trial demonstrated a survival benefit for oligometastatic patients randomized to local stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) compared to patients receiving standard care (SC) alone. Our aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of SABR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision model based on partitioned survival simulations estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with both strategies in a United States setting from a health care perspective. Analyses were performed over the trial duration of six years as well as a long-term horizon of 16 years. Model input parameters were based on the SABR-COMET trial data as well as best available and most recent data provided in the published literature. An annual discount of 3% for costs was implemented in the analysis. All costs were adjusted to 2019 US Dollars according to the United States Consumer Price Index. SABR costs were reported with an average of $11,700 per treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Incremental costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to $100,000/QALY.

RESULTS

Based on increased overall and progression-free survival, the SABR group showed 0.78 incremental QALYs over the trial duration and 1.34 incremental QALYs over the long-term analysis. Treatment with SABR led to a marginal increase in costs compared to SC alone (SABR: $304,656; SC: $303,523 for 6 years; ICER $1,446/QALY and SABR: $402,888; SC: $350,708 for long-term analysis; ICER $38,874/QALY). Therapy with SABR remained cost-effective until treatment costs of $88,969 over the trial duration (i.e. 7.6 times the average cost). Sensitivity analysis identified a strong model impact for ongoing annual costs of oligo- and polymetastatic disease states.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that local treatment with SABR adds QALYs for patients with certain oligometastatic cancers and represents an intermediate- and long-term cost-effective treatment strategy.

Robotics and AI for Teleoperation, Tele-Assessment, and Tele-Training for Surgery in the Era of COVID-19: Existing Challenges, and Future Vision

The unprecedented shock caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has severely influenced the delivery of regular healthcare services. Most non-urgent medical activities, including elective surgeries, have been paused to mitigate the risk of infection and to dedicate medical resources to managing the pandemic. In this regard, not only surgeries are substantially influenced, but also pre- and post-operative assessment of patients and training for surgical procedures have been significantly impacted due to the pandemic. Many countries are planning a phased reopening, which includes the resumption of some surgical procedures. However, it is not clear how the reopening safe-practice guidelines will impact the quality of healthcare delivery. This perspective article evaluates the use of robotics and AI in 1) robotics-assisted surgery, 2) tele-examination of patients for pre- and post-surgery, and 3) tele-training for surgical procedures. Surgeons interact with a large number of staff and patients on a daily basis. Thus, the risk of infection transmission between them raises concerns. In addition, pre- and post-operative assessment also raises concerns about increasing the risk of disease transmission, in particular, since many patients may have other underlying conditions, which can increase their chances of mortality due to the virus. The pandemic has also limited the time and access that trainee surgeons have for training in the OR and/or in the presence of an expert. In this article, we describe existing challenges and possible solutions and suggest future research directions that may be relevant for robotics and AI in addressing the three tasks mentioned above.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus placebo plus endocrine therapy in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Rapid Induction of the Unfolded Protein Response and Apoptosis by Estrogen Mimic TTC-352 for the Treatment of Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer

Patients with long-term estrogen-deprived breast cancer, after resistance to tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors develops, can experience tumor regression when treated with estrogens. Estrogen's antitumor effect is attributed to apoptosis via the estrogen receptor (ER). Estrogen treatment can have unpleasant gynecologic and nongynecologic adverse events; thus, the development of safer estrogenic agents remains a clinical priority. Here, we study synthetic selective estrogen mimics (SEM) BMI-135 and TTC-352, and the naturally occurring estrogen estetrol (E₄), which are proposed as safer estrogenic agents compared with 17β-estradiol (E₂), for the treatment of endocrine-resistant breast cancer. TTC-352 and E₄ are being evaluated in breast cancer clinical trials. Cell viability assays, real-time PCR, immunoblotting, ERE DNA pulldowns, mass spectrometry, X-ray crystallography, docking and molecular dynamic simulations, live cell imaging, and Annexin V staining were conducted in 11 biologically different breast cancer models. Results were compared with the potent full agonist E₂, less potent full agonist E₄, the benchmark partial agonist triphenylethylene bisphenol (BPTPE), and antagonists 4-hydroxytamoxifen and endoxifen. We report ERα's regulation and coregulators' binding profiles with SEMs and E₄ We describe TTC-352's pharmacology as a weak full agonist and antitumor molecular mechanisms. This study highlights TTC-352's benzothiophene scaffold that yields an H-bond with Glu353, which allows Asp351-to-helix 12 (H12) interaction, sealing ERα's ligand-binding domain, recruiting E₂-enriched coactivators, and triggering rapid ERα-induced unfolded protein response (UPR) and apoptosis, as the basis of its anticancer properties. BPTPE's phenolic OH yields an H-Bond with Thr347, which disrupts Asp351-to-H12 interaction, delaying UPR and apoptosis and increasing clonal evolution risk.

The economic impact of disease progression and death in hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer patients: using Korean nationwide health insurance claims data

OBJECTIVES

Recognizing the value of anticancer treatments based on progression-free survival and overall survival may help decision making in healthcare policy. We aimed to measure and compare the impact of disease progression and terminal state prior to death on healthcare costs in HR+, HER2- ABC patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using Korean nationwide health insurance claims database between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2017. The impact of disease progression was estimated by measuring the average incremental monthly cost per patient during 1 year after progression compared to 1 year before progression. Death-related costs per patient per month (PPPM) were measured for those who died within 1 year after progression. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to estimate the variations in PPPM costs by progression and death with adjustment for clinical factors.

RESULTS

After progression, 1,636 patients expensed $2,892 per month more on average than before progression ($3762 vs. $870). The GEE analysis with adjustment for baseline characteristics showed that PPPM costs increased by 3.46 folds (95% CI = 3.06-3.93) after progression. Also, PPPM costs were 1.74 (95%CI = 1.43-2.12) times higher in patients who died within 1 year after progression relative to survived patients. When considering the interaction between progression and death, deceased patients showed higher increased ratio of PPPM costs after progression (4.91; p=value<.0001) than survived patients (2.95; 95% CI = 2.61-3.34).

CONCLUSIONS

From the payer's perspective, more healthcare costs incurred during the progression state than terminal state in HR+, HER2- ABC patients. The impact of disease progression emphasizes the importance of effectively treating HR+, HER2- ABC patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy in Patients With Oligometastatic Cancer

PURPOSE

The Stereotactic Ablative Radiation therapy for Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors phase 2 randomized clinical trial found that stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) improved outcomes among cancer patients with oligometastatic disease. Yet, the cost of SABR along with the large number of patients with oligometastatic disease raises the important question of value. This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of SABR compared with standard therapy alone among cancer patients with oligometastatic disease.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy or standard therapy among patients with oligometastatic cancers. The model derived transition probabilities from Stereotactic Ablative Radiation therapy for Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors clinical trial data to estimate risks of toxicity, disease progression and survival. Health care costs and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from both the health care sector and societal perspectives with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) defined as dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). An ICER less than $100,000/QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The addition of SABR increased total costs by $54,260 (health care sector perspective) or $72,799 (societal perspective) and improved effectiveness by 1.88 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $28,906/QALY (health care sector perspective) or $38,783/QALY (societal perspective). The model was modestly sensitive to assumptions about tumor progression, although the model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or cost of treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that SABR was the cost-effective treatment option 99.8% (health care sector perspective) or 98.7% (societal perspective) of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of SABR increased costs and improved quality adjusted survival, overall leading to a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with oligometastatic cancer.