Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM?

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations

Importance

The OlympiA trial found that 1 year of adjuvant olaparib therapy can improve distant disease-free survival and overall survival from early-stage breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. However, olaparib, an oral poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitor, is estimated to cost approximately $14 000 per month in the US.

Objective

To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib compared with no olaparib in eligible patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In an economic evaluation from a health care system perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib was analyzed using a Markov state-transition model. The model simulated costs and lifetime health outcomes of 42-year-old women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer and a known BRCA1/2 mutation who completed definitive primary therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2023. The effectiveness of olaparib was based on the findings of the OlympiA randomized clinical trial, and other model parameters were identified from the literature. The model was calibrated to the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year distant disease-free and overall survival observed in the OlympiA trial, and olaparib was assumed to reduce the risk of distant recurrence only in the first 4 years.

Exposure

One year of adjuvant olaparib or no adjuvant olaparib.

Main Outcome and Measure

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2021 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All outcomes were discounted by 3% annually.

Results

In the base case, adjuvant olaparib was associated with a 1.25-year increase in life expectancy and a 1.20-QALY increase at an incremental cost of $133 133 compared with no olaparib. The resulting ICER was approximately $111 000 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, olaparib was cost-effective at its 2021 price and in more than 92% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of olaparib and quality of life for patients with no disease recurrence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, from a US health care system perspective, adjuvant olaparib was a cost-effective option for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

Treatment landscape and burden of disease in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: systematic and structured literature reviews

Purpose

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a lethal disease that imposes a major burden on patients and healthcare systems. Three structured literature reviews (treatment guidelines, treatment landscape, and human/clinical/patient burden) and one systematic literature review (economic burden) were conducted to better understand the disease burden and unmet needs for patients with late-stage mCRPC, for whom optimal treatment options are unclear.

Methods

Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, the CENTRAL database (structured and systematic reviews), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database (systematic review only) were searched for English-language records from 2009 to 2021 to identify mCRPC treatment guidelines and studies related to the treatment landscape and the humanistic/economic burden of mCRPC in adult men (aged ≥18 years) of any ethnicity.

Results

In total, six records were included for the treatment patterns review, 14 records for humanistic burden, nine records for economic burden, three records (two studies) for efficacy, and eight records for safety. Real-world treatment patterns were broadly aligned with treatment guidelines and provided no optimal treatment sequencing beyond second line other than palliative care. Current post-docetaxel treatments in mCRPC are associated with adverse events that cause relatively high rates of treatment discontinuation or disruption. The humanistic and economic burdens associated with mCRPC are high.

Conclusion

The findings highlight a lack of treatment options with novel mechanisms of action and more tolerable safety profiles that satisfy a risk-to-benefit ratio aligned with patient needs and preferences for patients with late-stage mCRPC. Treatment approaches that improve survival and health-related quality of life are needed, ideally while simultaneously reducing costs and healthcare resource utilization.

A review of the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for germline variants in familial cancer

BACKGROUND

Targeted germline testing is recommended for those with or at risk of breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer. The affordability of genetic sequencing has improved over the past decade, therefore the cost-effectiveness of testing for these cancers is worthy of reassessment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review economic evaluations on cost-effectiveness of germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A search of PubMed and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies on germline testing in breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer, published between 1999 and May 2022. Synthesis of methodology, cost-effectiveness, and reporting (CHEERS checklist) was performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; in 2021-adjusted US$) for germline testing versus the standard care option in hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) across target settings were as follows: (1) population-wide testing: 344-2.5 million/QALY; (2) women with high-risk: dominant = 78,118/QALY, 8,337-59,708/LYG; (3) existing breast or ovarian cancer: 3,012-72,566/QALY, 39,835/LYG; and (4) metastatic breast cancer: 158,630/QALY. Likewise, ICERs of germline testing for colorectal cancer across settings were: (1) population-wide testing: 132,200/QALY, 1.1 million/LYG; (2) people with high-risk: 32,322-76,750/QALY, dominant = 353/LYG; and (3) patients with existing colorectal cancer: dominant = 54,122/QALY, 98,790-6.3 million/LYG. Key areas of underreporting were the inclusion of a health economic analysis plan (100% of HBOC and colorectal studies), engagement of patients and stakeholders (95.4% of HBOC, 100% of colorectal studies) and measurement of outcomes (18.2% HBOC, 38.9% of colorectal studies).

CONCLUSION

Germline testing for HBOC was likely to be cost-effective across most settings, except when used as a co-dependent technology with the PARP inhibitor, olaparib in metastatic breast cancer. In colorectal cancer studies, testing was cost-effective in those with high-risk, but inconclusive in other settings. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the prevalence of tested variants, cost of testing, uptake, and benefits of prophylactic measures. Policy advice on germline testing should emphasize the importance of these factors in their recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors in malignancies: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also bring an increase in costs. Thus, we aimed at evaluating the cost effectiveness of PARPis in the treatment of malignancies.

METHODS

Studies of cost effectiveness of PARPis were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Key information was extracted from the identified studies and reviewed. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Modeling techniques, measurement of parameters and uncertainty analysis were analyzed across studies. Interventions and cost-effectiveness results were reported stratified by patient population.

RESULTS

Among the 25 studies identified, we included 17 on ovarian cancer, 2 on breast cancer, 3 on pancreatic cancer, and 3 on prostate cancer that involved olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. All studies had a QHES score of above 75. In the maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer, additional administration of olaparib was cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but was not cost-effective for platinum-sensitive recurrent patients in majority studies. However, the economic value of other PARPis in ovarian cancer as well as all PARPis in other tumors remained controversial. Cost-effectiveness of PARPi was primarily impacted by the costs of PARPi, survival time, health utility and discount rate. Moreover, genetic testing improved the cost-effectiveness of PARPi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PARPi is potentially cost-effective for patients with ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer. Genetic testing can improve the cost-effectiveness of PARPi.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in China and United States

Background

Metastatic prostate cancer is initially sensitive to androgen receptor inhibition, but eventually becomes metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Olaparib has longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. In the present study, 2 Markov models were established to analyze the cost utility of olaparib in treating mCRPC from the perspectives of health services in China and the United States.

Methods

Markov models were established to simulate the progress of mCRPC in China and the United States. The state transition probabilities and clinical data were extracted from the PROfound trial. The cost data were estimated from local pricing, the relevant literature and expert consultancy. The health outcomes are expressed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented in US dollars. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the models.

Results

Based on the Chinese Markov model, the base case ICER for olaparib versus the control group was ¥392,727.87, with incremental costs of ¥93,673.23 and an incremental QALY of 0.23, indicating that it was not cost effective from the aspect of the Chinese healthcare system. However, as shown by the American Markov model, olaparib was dominant versus the control group, with a cost saving of $69,675.20 and a gain of 0.23 QALYs. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the modeling results were not significantly affected by the model parameters.

Conclusions

Olaparib treatment in patients with mCRPC is not cost effective in China, but it is cost saving in the United States.