Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer

Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model's robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).

CONCLUSIONS

NALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.

Cost-consequence analysis of ofatumumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada

Aim: The costs and consequences of initial and delayed ofatumumab treatment were evaluated in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with active disease in Canada. Materials & methods: A Markov cohort model was used (10-year horizon, annual cycle length, 1.5% discounting). Scenario analyses examined ofatumumab as first-line treatment versus 3 and 5 years following switch from commonly used first-line therapies. Results: Ofatumumab resulted in improvements in clinical outcomes (relapses and disease progression) and productivity (employment and full-time work), and reduction of economic burden (administration, monitoring and non-drug costs) that were comparable to other high-efficacy therapies (ocrelizumab, cladribine and natalizumab). Switching to ofatumumab earlier in the disease course may improve these outcomes. Conclusion: Results highlight the value of a high-efficacy therapy such as ofatumumab as initial treatment (i.e., first-line) in newly diagnosed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients with active disease.

Cost-effectiveness of pancreas surveillance: The CDKN2A-p16-Leiden cohort

BACKGROUND

CDKN2A-p16-Leiden mutation carriers have a high lifetime risk of developing pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with very poor survival. Surveillance may improve prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of surveillance, as compared to no surveillance.

METHODS

In 2000, a surveillance program was initiated at Leiden University Medical Center with annual MRI and optional endoscopic ultrasound. Data were collected on the resection rate of screen-detected tumors and on survival. The Kaplan-Meier method and a parametric cure model were used to analyze and compare survival. Based on the surveillance and survival data from the screening program, a state-transition model was constructed to estimate lifelong outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 347 mutation carriers participated in the surveillance program. PDAC was detected in 31 patients (8.9%) and the tumor could be resected in 22 patients (71.0%). Long-term cure among patients with resected PDAC was estimated at 47.1% (p < 0.001). The surveillance program was estimated to reduce mortality from PDAC by 12.1% and increase average life expectancy by 2.10 years. Lifelong costs increased by €13,900 per patient, with a cost-utility ratio of €14,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. For annual surveillance to have an acceptable cost-effectiveness in other settings, lifetime PDAC risk needs to be 10% or higher.

CONCLUSION

The tumor could be resected in most patients with a screen-detected PDAC. These patients had considerably better survival and as a result annual surveillance was found to be cost-effective.

A Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab as a First-Line Therapy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Canada

BACKGROUND

Venetoclax is a first-in-class targeted therapy option that is an inducer of apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells. The open-label phase III CLL14 clinical trial showed that venetoclax combined with obinutuzumab (VEN+O) is superior to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil in newly diagnosed patients with CLL. The aim of this study was to assess the health economic value of VEN+O for the frontline treatment of CLL in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival analyses model was developed including three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was assumed. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus rituximab, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, ibrutinib, and acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall frontline CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses, and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Based on the probabilistic analyses, unfit frontline CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of Canadian dollars ($) 217,727 [confidence interval (CI) $170,725, $300,761] (del17p/TP53: $209,102 [CI $159,698, $386,190], non-del17p/TP53: $217,732 [CI $171,232, $299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted life-years (del17p/TP53: 3.11 [CI 2.00, 4.20], non-del17p/TP53: 5.04 [CI 4.05, 5.92]). Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, and ibrutinib accrued lower quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs and as such, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. The full incremental analysis showed that acalabrutinib was more expensive and more efficacious compared with VEN+O with an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of $2,139,180/quality-adjusted life-year versus VEN+O and not a cost-effective option in Canada. Probabilistic analyses show that at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained, VEN+O has the greatest probability of being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

VEN+O is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit frontline CLL patients and provides value for money to healthcare payers.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ofatumumab for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in Canada

BACKGROUND

Ofatumumab is a high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) approved for first-line treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of ofatumumab from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was run over 65 years using annual cycles, 1.5% annual discount rate, and 100% treatment discontinuation at 10 years. The British Columbia database informed natural history transition probabilities. Treatment efficacy for DMTs were sourced from a network meta-analysis. Clinical trial data were used to estimate probabilities for treatment-related adverse events. Health utilities and costs were obtained from Canadian sources (if available) and the literature.

RESULTS

Among first-line indicated therapies for RRMS, ofatumumab was dominant (more effective, lower costs) over teriflunomide, interferons, dimethyl fumarate, and ocrelizumab. Compared with glatiramer acetate and best supportive care, ofatumumab resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $24,189 Canadian dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $28,014/QALY, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, ofatumumab had a 64.3% probability of being cost effective. Among second-line therapies (scenario analysis), ofatumumab dominated natalizumab and fingolimod and resulted in an ICER of $50,969 versus cladribine.

CONCLUSIONS

Ofatumumab is cost effective against all comparators and dominant against all currently approved and reimbursed first-line DMTs for RRMS, except glatiramer acetate.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The 2020 National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (G-nP) for borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC).

AIM

The purpose of our study was to compare treatment outcomes, toxicity profiles, costs, and quality-of-life measures between these two treatments to further inform clinical decision-making.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a decision-analytic mathematical model to compare the total cost and health outcomes of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX against G-nP over 12 years. The model inputs were estimated using clinical trial data and published literature. The primary endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY). Secondary endpoints included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), total cost of care, QALYs, PDAC resection rate, and monthly treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) costs (USD). FOLFIRINOX was the cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of $60856.47 per QALY when compared to G-nP. G-nP had an ICER of $44639.71 per QALY when compared to natural history. For clinical outcomes, more patients underwent an "R0" resection with FOLFIRINOX compared to G-nP (84.9 vs. 81.0%), but FOLFIRINOX had higher TRAE costs than G-nP ($10905.19 vs. $4894.11). A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER of FOLFIRINOX exceeded the threshold when TRAE costs were higher or PDAC recurrence rates were lower.

CONCLUSION

Our modeling analysis suggests that FOLFIRNOX is the cost-effective treatment compared to G-nP for BR/LA PDAC despite having a higher cost of total care due to TRAE costs. Trial data with sufficient follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

Health and Budget Impact of Liquid-Biopsy-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profile (CGP) Testing in Tissue-Limited Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (aNSCLC) Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Molecular genetic testing using tissue biopsies can be challenging for patients due to unfavorable tumor sites, the invasive nature of a tissue biopsy, and the added time of booking a repeat biopsy (re-biopsy). Centers in Canada have found insufficient tissue rates to be approximately 10%, and even among successful biopsies, insufficient DNA in tissue samples is approximately 16%, triggering the lengthy process of re-biopsies. Using aNSCLC as an example, this study sought to characterize the health and budget impact of alternative liquid-biopsy(LBx)-based comprehensive genomic profile (CGP) testing in tissue-limited patients (TL-LBx-CGP) from a Canadian publicly funded healthcare perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost and life-years gained as a population associated with adopting TL-LBx-CGP. The eligible patient population was modeled using a top-down epidemiological approach based on the published literature and expert clinician input. Treatment allocation was modeled based on biomarker prevalence in the published literature, and the availability of funded therapies. Costs included molecular testing, as well as drug, administrative, and supportive costs, and relevant health data included median overall survival and median progression-free survival data. RESULTS: Incorporation of TL-LBx-CGP demonstrated an overall impact of $14.7 million with 168 life-years gained to the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system in the 3-year time horizon.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Erlotinib for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine and gemcitabine plus erlotinib as first-line treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

On the basis of the Gemcitabine With/Out Erlotinib in Unresectable Locally Advanced/Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer (PA.3) trial, the Markov model was constructed to simulate the development of advanced pancreatic cancer. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to determine the economic level of the treatments, according to the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The sensitivity analysis was conducted for cost-effectiveness and other indexes.

FINDINGS

The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the cost-effectiveness ratios for the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer were ¥60,492.78 (US$8892.44/€7568.88) per 6.34 quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) for gemcitabine and ¥99,595.39 (US$14,640.52/€12,461.42) per 7.02 QALMs for gemcitabine plus erlotinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the 2 regimens was ¥57,503.84 ($8453.06/€7194.90) per QALM, which was higher than the WTP set in this study (¥16,161 [$2375.66/€2022.07] per QALM). The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that the analysis results were stable. Gemcitabine was more cost-effective than gemcitabine plus erlotinib.

IMPLICATIONS

Compared with gemcitabine, gemcitabine plus erlotinib was not cost-effective at the level of the WTP. Gemcitabine plus erlotinib therapy has no economic significance as a first-line medical treatment for pancreatic cancer.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

Economic evaluation of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant taxane and trastuzumab-based treatment in Canada

Background

In the katherine trial, adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine [T-DM1, Kadcyla (Genentech, South San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.)], compared with trastuzumab, significantly reduced the risk of recurrence or death by 50% (unstratified hazard ratio: 0.50; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.64; p < 0.0001) in patients with her2-positive early breast cancer (ebc) and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant systemic treatment. A cost-utility evaluation, with probabilistic analyses, was conducted to examine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained associated with T-DM1 relative to trastuzumab, given the higher per-cycle cost of T-DM1.

Methods

A Markov model comprising a number of health states was used to examine clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon from the Canadian public payer perspective. Patients entered the model in the invasive disease-free survival (idfs) state, where they received either T-DM1 or trastuzumab. Transition probabilities between the health states were derived from the katherine trial, Canadian life tables, and published literature from other relevant clinical trials (emilia, cleopatra, and M77001). Resource use, costs, and utilities were derived from katherine, other clinical trials, published literature, provincial fee schedules, and clinical expert opinion. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for key assumptions and model parameters.

Results

Compared with trastuzumab, adjuvant T-DM1 was associated with a cost savings of $8,300 per patient and a 2.16 incremental qaly gain; thus T-DM1 dominated trastuzumab. Scenario analyses yielded similar results, with T-DM1 dominating trastuzumab or producing highly favourable incremental cost-utility ratios of less than $10,000 per qaly.

Conclusions

Adjuvant T-DM1 monotherapy is a cost-effective strategy compared with trastuzumab alone in the treatment of patients with her2-positive ebc and residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant systemic treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Real-World Administration of Concomitant Viscum album L. Therapy for the Treatment of Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer

Background

For patients receiving add-on Viscum album L. (VA) treatments for late-stage pancreatic cancer, an improved overall survival (OS) was observed. Only limited information regarding cost-effectiveness (CE) for comparisons between standard of care and standard of care plus add-on VA in stage IV pancreatic cancer treatment is available. The present study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of standard of care plus VA (V) compared to standard of care alone (C) for a hospital in Germany.

Methods

An observational study was conducted using data from the Network Oncology clinical registry. Patients included had stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis and received C or V treatment in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) including the analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were performed from the hospital's perspective based on routine data from the financial controlling department and observed data on OS. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis.

Results

88 patients (C or n = 34; V treatment in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) including the analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were performed from the hospital's perspective based on routine data from the financial controlling department and observed data on OS. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis. n = 34; C or V treatment in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) including the analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were performed from the hospital's perspective based on routine data from the financial controlling department and observed data on OS. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis. V treatment in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) including the analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were performed from the hospital's perspective based on routine data from the financial controlling department and observed data on OS. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis. C or V treatment in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) including the analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were performed from the hospital's perspective based on routine data from the financial controlling department and observed data on OS. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis. C or V treatment in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) including the analysis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were performed from the hospital's perspective based on routine data from the financial controlling department and observed data on OS. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis. C or

Conclusion

Based on this CEA analysis, from the hospital's point of view, the costs per mean month of OS and per mean hospital stay were lower for patients under combinational standard of care plus VA compared to patients receiving standard of care alone for the treatment of stage IV pancreatic cancer. Further prospective cost-effectiveness studies are mandatory to reevaluate our findings.

Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

In a global, phase III, open-label, noninferiority trial (REFLECT), lenvatinib demonstrated noninferiority to sorafenib in overall survival and a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, lenvatinib became the first agent in more than 10 years to receive approval as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC, along with the previously approved sorafenib. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib as a first-line therapy of unresectable HCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A state-transition model of unresectable HCC was developed in the form of a cost-utility analysis. The model time horizon was 5 years; the efficacy of the model was informed by the REFLECT trial, and costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Lenvatinib dominated sorafenib in the base case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that lenvatinib remains a cost-saving measure in 64.87% of the simulations. However, if the cost of sorafenib was reduced by 57%, lenvatinib would no longer be the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib offered a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, suggesting that lenvatinib would be a cost-saving alternative in treating unresectable HCC. However, lenvatinib may fail to remain cost-saving if a significantly cheaper generic sorafenib becomes available.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This analysis suggests an actionable clinical policy that will achieve cost saving. This cost-utility analysis showed that lenvatinib had a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, indicating that lenvatinib may be a cost-saving measure in patients with unresectable HCC, in which $23,719 could be saved per patient. The introduction of a new therapeutic option for the first time in 10 years in Canada provides an important opportunity for clinicians, researchers, and health care decision-makers to explore potential modifications in recommendations and practice guidelines.

Economic Analysis of Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreas Cancer

BACKGROUND

Population-based survival and costs of pancreas adenocarcinoma patients receiving adjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy following pancreaticoduodenectomy are poorly understood.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used linked administrative and pathological datasets to identify all patients diagnosed with pancreas adenocarcinoma and undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy in Ontario between April 2004 and March 2014, who received postoperative chemoradiation or chemotherapy. Stage and margin status were defined by using pathology reports. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were used to determine associations between adjuvant treatment approach and survival, while stratifying by margin status. Median overall health system costs were calculated at 1 and 3 years for chemoradiation and chemotherapy, and differences were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Among 709 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreas cancer during the study period, the median survival was 21 months. Median survival was 19 months for chemoradiation and 22 months for chemotherapy. Patients receiving chemoradiation were more likely to have positive margins: 47.7% compared with 19.2% in chemotherapy. After stratifying by margin status and controlling for confounders, adjusted hazard ratio of death were not statistically different between chemotherapy and chemoradiation [margin positive, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.88-1.27; margin negative, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-1.18]. Overall 1-year health system costs were significantly higher for chemoradiation (USD $70,047) than chemotherapy (USD $54,005) (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Chemotherapy and chemoradiation yielded similar survival, but chemoradiation resulted in higher costs. To create more sustainable healthcare systems, both the efficacy and costs of therapies should be considered.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10 years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically. Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.

Modified FOLFIRINOX for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. A real-world comparison of an attenuated with a full dose in a single center experience

Purpose: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a very poor prognosis. Although irinotecan, oxaliplatin and leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX) significantly increases survival in advanced pancreatic cancer, compared to employing only gemcitabine (GEM), toxicities have tempered enthusiasm for its use. Methods: This study retrospectively analyses the real-world clinical practice with full and attenuated doses of FOLFIRINOX in unselected patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer, treated at an Italian general hospital. Efficacy, tolerability, and toxicity were evaluated, and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Fifty consecutive patients with advanced (13) or metastatic (37) pancreatic adenocarcinomas were treated with FOLFIRINOX at the Medical Oncology Unit, Piacenza General Hospital, North Italy. The first enrolled consecutive 18 patients (36%) of this series started the treatment with a full dose of the regimen, while the subsequent 32 (64%) consecutive patients received dose attenuation (-20% bolus fluorouracil and -25% irinotecan). In the entire group, the response rate, median OS, and median PFS were 30%, 10.1 months, and 5.6 months, respectively, with no differences in objective response in the 32 patients that received an attenuated dose compared with the 18 patients receiving a full dose of chemotherapy. However, neutropenia, anemia, fatigue, and vomiting were statistically increased in the 18 patients receiving a full dose compared with the 32 patients receiving an attenuated dose of FOLFIRINOX (p<0.05). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the efficacy and tolerability of modified FOLFIRINOX in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgery for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis

Background

Neoadjuvant therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment strategy for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. In the absence of large randomized controlled trials offering a direct comparison, this study aims to use Markov decision analysis to compare efficacy of traditional surgery first (SF) and neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

An advanced Markov decision analysis model was constructed to compare SF and NAT pathways for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer. Transition probabilities were calculated from randomized control and Phase II/III trials after comprehensive literature search. Utility outcomes were measured in overall and quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) on an intention-to-treat basis as the primary outcome. Markov cohort analysis of treatment received was the secondary outcome. Model uncertainties were tested with one and two-way deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis.

Results

SF gave 23.72 months (18.51 QALMs) versus 20.22 months (16.26 QALMs). Markov Cohort Analysis showed that where all treatment modalities were received NAT gave 35.05 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 30.96 months (24.86QALMs) for R0 resection and 34.08 months (29.87 QALMs) versus 25.85 months (20.72 QALMs) for R1 resection. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that NAT was superior if the resection rate was greater than 51.04% or below 75.68% in SF pathway. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that pathway superiority depended on obtaining multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Conclusion

Whilst NAT is a viable alternative to traditional SF approach, superior pathway selection depends on the individual patient’s likelihood of receiving multimodal treatment in either pathway.

Assessing the Financial Burden Associated With Treatment Options for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess the financial burden associated with treatment options for resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND

As the volume of cancer care increases in the United States, there is growing interest among both clinicians and policy-makers to reduce its financial impact on the healthcare system. However, costs relative to the survival benefit for differing treatment modalities used in practice have not been described.

METHODS

Patients undergoing resection for pancreatic cancer were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan database. Associations between chemoradiation therapies and survival were performed using parameterized multivariable accelerated failure time models. Median payments over time were calculated for surgery, chemoradiation, and subsequent hospitalizations.

RESULTS

A total of 2408 patients were included. Median survival among all patients was 21.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 19.8-22.5 months], whereas median follow-up time was 25.1 months (95% CI: 23.5-26.5 months). After controlling for comorbidity, receipt of neoadjuvant therapy, and nodal involvement, a longer survival was associated with undergoing combination gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel [time ratio (TR) = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.02-1.57, P = 0.035) or capecitabine and radiation (TR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.51, P = 0.018). However, median cumulative payments for gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel were highest overall [median $74,051, interquartile range (IQR): $38,929-$133,603).

CONCLUSIONS

Total payments for an episode of care relative to improvement in survival vary significantly by treatment modality. These data can be used to inform management decisions about pursuing further care for pancreatic cancer. Future investigations should seek to refine estimates of the cost-effectiveness of different treatments.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Decision Analysis

Decision‐analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial between competing strategies. This article analyzes a mathematical decision‐analytic model to estimate the long‐term clinical outcomes and cost‐effectiveness of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX compared with surgery followed by adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy or gemcitabine/capecitabine for patients with potentially resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Background.

The effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of using neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (nFOLFIRINOX) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC) are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether nFOLFIRINOX is more effective or cost‐effective for patients with BR/LA PDAC compared with upfront resection surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM/CAPE) or gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM).

Materials and Methods.

We performed a decision‐analysis to assess the value of nFOLFIRINOX versus GEM/CAPE or GEM using a mathematical simulation model. Model transition probabilities were estimated using published and institutional clinical data. Model outcomes included overall and disease‐free survival, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs), cost in U.S. dollars, and cost‐effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty of model assumptions.

Results.

Model results found median overall survival (34.5/28.0/22.0 months) and disease‐free survival (15.0/14.0/13.0 months) were better for nFOLFIRINOX compared with GEM/CAPE and GEM. nFOLFIRINOX was the optimal strategy on an efficiency frontier, resulting in an additional 0.35 life‐years, or 0.30 QALYs, at a cost of $46,200/QALY gained compared with GEM/CAPE. Sensitivity analysis found that cancer recurrence and complete resection rates most affected model results, but were otherwise robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that nFOLFIRINOX was cost‐effective 92.4% of the time at a willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.

Conclusion.

Our modeling analysis suggests that nFOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery for patients with BR/LA PDAC from both an effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness standpoint. Additional clinical data that further define the long‐term effectiveness of nFOLFIRINOX are needed to confirm our results.

Implications for Practice.

Increasingly, neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX has been used for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with the goal of rendering them resectable and decreasing risk of recurrence. Despite many efforts to show the benefits of neoadjuvant over adjuvant therapies, clinical evidence to guide this decision is largely lacking. Decision‐analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial. This modeling analysis suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery and adjuvant therapies by various outcome metrics including quality‐adjusted life years, overall survival, and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio.

Role of adjuvant therapy in resected stage IA subcentimeter (T1a/T1b) pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for patients with resected stage I to stage III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is adjuvant gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. The role of adjuvant treatment in patients with subcentimeter, stage IA PDAC is unknown. The current study evaluated the effect of adjuvant treatment on survival outcomes among patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer stage IA (T1N0) resected PDAC using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB).

METHODS

A retrospective review of the NCDB was conducted for patients diagnosed with T1 (tumor limited to the pancreas and measuring ≤2 cm in greatest dimension), lymph node-negative (N0), resected PDAC between 2004 and 2013. Patient demographics, histology, adjuvant treatment, and survival trends were examined. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were performed to determine the unadjusted association between overall survival (OS), tumor size, and treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 876 patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients had a mean age of 66.2 years (range, 32-90 years); approximately 83.3% were white (730 patients) and 53.1% were female (465 patients). Approximately 45.9% of the patients had moderately differentiated tumor histology (402 patients); 70.0% (613 patients) had tumors measuring 1 to 2 cm (T1c) and 30.0% (263 patients) had tumors measuring <1 cm (T1a/T1b). Approximately 94.2% of patients had negative surgical margins (815 patients) and 46.9% (410 patients) received adjuvant therapy. The median OS was significantly different for patients who received adjuvant therapy compared with patients who did not (70.7 months vs 46.9 months; P = .0001). For patients with tumors measuring <1 cm, survival was not found to be significantly different between patients who received adjuvant treatment compared with those who did not (not reached vs 85.3 months; P = .54). In the multivariable analysis, none of the covariates (treatment group, Charlson-Deyo Score, age, insurance, and facility status) demonstrated significant differences for patients with tumors measuring <1 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study is the first to demonstrate no survival benefit for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected subcentimeter PDAC.

Economic Evaluation for the UK of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine (GEM), oxaliplatin plus GEM (OX + GEM), cisplatin plus GEM (CIS + GEM), capecitabine plus GEM (CAP + GEM), FOLFIRINOX (FFX), and nab-paclitaxel plus GEM (NAB-P + GEM) are the most commonly used regimens as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) in the UK. Independent economic evaluation of these regimens simultaneously has not been conducted for the UK.

OBJECTIVE

Using data from a network meta-analysis as efficacy measures, we estimated the cost effectiveness and cost utility of these regimens for the UK.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed-disease, and death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] gained and life-years [LYs]) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for patients with MPC, from the payer perspective. The model was specified to calculate total costs in 2017 British pounds (GBP, £). All values were discounted at 3.5% per year over a full lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

FFX was the most effective regimen, NAB-P + GEM was the most costly regimen, and GEM was the least costly and least effective regimen. OX + GEM, CIS + GEM, and NAB-P + GEM were dominated by CAP + GEM and FFX. Compared with GEM, the ICUR for CAP + GEM and FFX was £28,066 and £33,020/QALY gained, respectively; compared with GEM, the ICER for CAP + GEM and FFX was £17,437 and £22,291/LY gained, respectively; and compared with CAP + GEM, the ICUR and ICER for FFX were £34,947/QALY gained and 24,414/LY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold value of £30,000/QALY, CAP + GEM was found to be the only cost-effective regimen in the management of MPC in the UK.

Evaluation of subcutaneous rituximab administration on Canadian systemic therapy suites

Background

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (nhl) is the most common hematologic malignancy. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (dlbcl) and follicular lymphoma (fl) constitute 55% of new nhl cases and are initially treated with rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy. Relative to intravenous (IV) rituximab, a subcutaneous (sc) formulation approved in 2016 has comparable pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety, and a greatly reduced administration time; it is also preferred by patients. The objective of the present study was to estimate the effect (on systemic therapy suite time and on the costs of drug acquisition and administration) of implementing sc rituximab in the initial chemoimmunotherapy for fl and dlbcl over 3 years in the Canadian market.

Methods

An Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, U.S.A.)-based model was created with a population size based on epidemiologic data and current rituximab use, duration of use considering initial therapy, time savings for sc rituximab administration from published studies, costs from standard Canadian sources, and assumed uptake in implementing provinces of 65%, 75%, and 80% over 3 years. Key parameters and sensitivity analysis values were validated by clinical experts located in various Canadian jurisdictions. Costs are reported in 2017 Canadian dollars from the perspective of the health care system.

Results

More than 3 years after implementation of sc rituximab, we estimated that 5762 Canadians would be receiving sc rituximab, resulting in savings of 128,715 hours in systemic therapy suite time and approximately $40 million in drug and administration costs. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the model is most sensitive to sc market uptake, number of induction therapy cycles, and eligible patients.

Conclusions

Subcutaneous administration of rituximab can significantly reduce systemic therapy suite time and achieve substantial savings in drug and administration costs.

Economic Evaluation for USA of Systemic Chemotherapies as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer include monotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM); combinations of GEM with oxaliplatin (OX + GEM), cisplatin (CIS + GEM), capecitabine (CAP + GEM), or nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P + GEM); and the non-GEM combination FOLFIRINOX. Combination therapies have yielded better survival outcomes than GEM alone. A sponsor-independent economic evaluation of these regimens has not been conducted for USA.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of these regimens from the payer perspective for USA.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed disease, death) simulating the total costs and health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years; life-years) was developed to estimate the incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios. FOLFIRINOX clinical data were obtained from trial and indirect estimates were obtained from network meta-analyses. Lifetime horizon and 3%/year discount rates were used.

RESULTS

FOLFIRINOX was the most expensive regimen and GEM the least costly regimen. Compared to GEM, all but one (CIS + GEM) regimen were found to be more effective in quality-adjusted life-years and life-years. Compared to GEM, the incremental cost-utility ratios for CAP + GEM, OX-GEM, NAB-P + GEM, and FOLFIRINOX, were US$180,503, US$197,993, US$204,833, and US$265,718 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, respectively; and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were US$88,181, US$87,620, US$135,683, and US$167,040 per additional life-year, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This sponsor-independent economic evaluation for USA found that OX + GEM, CAP + GEM, FOLFIRINOX, and NAB-P + GEM, but not CIS + GEM, were more expensive but also more effective than GEM alone in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and life-years gained. The NAB-P + GEM regimen appears to be the most cost effective in USA at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$200,000/quality-adjusted life-year.

Economic Evaluation of Bevacizumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer in Canada

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Although the disease is relatively rare, it carries a disproportionately large morbidity burden.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab, a newly available treatment option for recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Using a 7-year time horizon, a three health-state cohort-based partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost utility of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (BEV) versus chemotherapy alone. We reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Clinical parameters, including progression-free survival and overall survival, were derived from the AURELIA phase III randomized controlled trial. Costs, resource utilization and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented using incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Uncertainty was examined through univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The reconstructed individual patient data matched the AURELIA trial results. Total costs for the BEV and chemotherapy treatment arms were $Can79,086 and $Can54,982, respectively. Total estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 1.1055 and 0.9926 for the BEV and chemotherapy arms, respectively. The ICUR was estimated to be $Can213,424 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can100,000 per QALY gained, the probability of BEV being cost effective was 0.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our analysis suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to single-agent chemotherapy treatment, while improving patient outcomes, is unlikely to be cost effective in this Canadian patient population. The results also provide some preliminary validation for use of individual patient data-reconstruction techniques in pharmacoeconomic evaluation.

Economic evaluation of rituximab in addition to standard of care chemotherapy for adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia

AIMS

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an aggressive form of leukemia with a poor prognosis in adult patients. The addition of the monoclonal antibody rituximab to standard chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival in adults with ALL. However, it is unknown whether the addition of rituximab is cost-effective. The objective was to determine the economic impact of rituximab in addition to standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy vs SOC alone in newly-diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-negative, CD20-positive, B-cell precursor ALL.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was constructed, based upon the Canadian healthcare system. It included the following health states over a lifetime horizon (max ≈60 years): event-free survival (EFS), relapsed/resistant disease, cure, and death. SOC was either hyper-CVAD or the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) ALL consortium. EFS, overall survival, and serious adverse event (SAE) rates were derived from a large randomized controlled trial. Costs of the model included: first-line treatment and administration, disease management, second-line and third-line treatment and administration, palliative care, and SAE-related treatments. Inputs were sourced from provincial and national public data, the literature, and cancer agency input.

RESULTS

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by 2.20 QALYs with rituximab in addition to SOC. The resulting mean Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was C$21,828/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of C$100,000/QALY, the probability of being cost-effective was 98%. Decision outcomes were robust to the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses, including the SOC backbone as either hyper-CVAD or DFCI.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this analysis are limited by generalizability of the chemotherapy backbone to Canadian practice.

CONCLUSIONS

For adults with ALL, rituximab in addition to SOC was found to be a cost-effective intervention, compared to SOC alone. The addition of rituximab is associated with increased life years and increased QALYs at a reasonable incremental cost.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer

Background

A recent Cochrane review compared laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for people with for cancers of the body and tail of the pancreas and found that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy may reduce the length of hospital stay. We compared the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer.

Method

Model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. A decision tree model was constructed using probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources. A time horizon of 5 years was used. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental net monetary benefit was positive (£3,708.58 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -£9,473.62 to £16,115.69) but the 95% CI includes zero, indicating that there is significant uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus open distal pancreatectomy. The probability laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer was between 70% and 80% at the willingness-to-pay thresholds generally used in England (£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained). Results were sensitive to the survival proportions and the operating time.

Conclusions

There is considerable uncertainty about whether laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective compared to open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer in the NHS setting.

Dose Escalation and Co-therapy Intensification Between Etanercept, Adalimumab, and Infliximab: The CADURA Study

Objective

To compare anti-TNF dose escalation, DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification, switches to another biologic, and drug and drug-related costs over 12 and 18 months for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), or infliximab (IFX) in routine clinical practice across Canada.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of biologic-naïve adult RA patients newly initiating ADA, ETN, or IFX between January 01, 2006 and December 31, 2012 from 11 practices across Canada.

Results

There were 314 patients in the 12-month analysis and 217 in the 18-month analysis. No dose escalation occurred with ETN over 12 and 18 months versus 38% and 32% for IFX (p<0.001) and 2% and 2% for ADA (p=0.199, p=0.218). Over 18 months, dose escalation and/or DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification was less frequent among ETN (16%) versus IFX (44%, p=0.005) and ADA (34%, p=0.004). By 18 months, 22% of patients initiating ADA had switched to another biologic compared with 6% of ETN patients (p=0.001).Patients initiating ETN had lower total (drug and drug-related) costs over 12 and 18 months compared to IFX, and no difference compared to ADA when adjusted for potential confounders. Patients with dose escalation had higher costs compared to those with no dose escalation.

Conclusion

Physicians were more likely to escalate the dose of IFX, but optimize co-therapy with ADA and ETN. ETN patients had no dose escalation and were less likely to have DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification than ADA patients. ETN-treated patients had lower costs compared to IFX patients.

Diagnostic Laparoscopy Prior to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Pancreatic Cancer Is High Yield: an Analysis of Outcomes and Costs

BACKGROUND

There is currently no standardized regimen for management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), and treatment includes varying sequences of surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. This study examines the diagnostic yield and cost of performing staging diagnostic laparoscopy (SDL) prior to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in BRPC.

METHODS

Sequential patients treated for BRPC between January 2010 and October 2013 were included. SDL was adopted in a staged fashion due to surgeon preference, and included biopsy of visible lesions and washings for cytology. Cost ratios (CRs) were calculated to compare the direct cost of the SDL versus no-SDL groups and to compare patients with positive versus negative SDL.

RESULTS

Of 116 patients evaluated for BRPC, 75 patients underwent SDL and 19 (25%) revealed occult metastatic disease. Sixteen patients had a positive biopsy and three had positive cytology alone. There was no difference in overall treatment cost (CR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.37), oncologic treatment (CR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32-1.23), or remaining surgical treatment (CR 1.14, 95% CI 0.77-1.71) for patients who underwent SDL compared to those who did not. Patients with a positive SDL incurred lower overall cost compared to those with a negative SDL (CR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16-0.32) due to lack of further surgery or radiation, and less intensive chemotherapy regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

SDL prior to NAT is a useful adjunct to CT to diagnose occult metastatic disease in BRPC.

Current status on the place of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and future directions

Pancreatic cancer (PC) incidence rates are rapidly increasing in developed countries, with half the patients being metastatic at diagnosis. For decades, fluorouracil, then gemcitabine regimens were the preferred palliative first-line options for fit patients with metastatic PC. FOLFIRINOX (a combination of bolus and infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) was introduced to clinical practice in 2010 due to the results of the phase II/III trial (PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11) comparing FOLFIRINOX with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line treatment for patients with MPC. Median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate were superior with FOLFIRINOX over gemcitabine and there was prolonged time to definitive deterioration in quality of life. Although FOLFIRINOX was also associated with increased toxicity, mainly febrile neutropenia and diarrhea, there has been rapid uptake of this regimen. This review closely examines optimal management and prevention of toxicities, international recommendations for first-line treatment, and use of modified FOLFIRINOX protocols. In this review, we also look at the potential benefit of FOLFIRINOX in selected groups of patients: second-line therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, induction therapy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced PC. Robust validation of the FOLFIRINOX regimen in these settings requires confirmation in further randomized trials.

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

BACKGROUND

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

METHODS

In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

NAB-P + GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P + GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI = 0.59-1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P + GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P + GEM over FOLFIRINOX.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapies in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer in the Canadian Health Care System

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine (G), G + 5-fluorouracil, G + capecitabine, G + cisplatin, G + oxaliplatin, G + erlotinib, G + nab-paclitaxel (GnP), and FOLFIRINOX in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer from a Canadian public health payer's perspective, using data from a recently published Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted through a three-state Markov model and used data on the progression of disease with treatment from the gemcitabine arms of randomized controlled trials combined with estimates from the network meta-analysis for the newer regimens. Estimates of health care costs were obtained from local providers, and utilities were derived from the literature. The model estimates the effect of treatment regimens on costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) discounted at 5% per annum.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of greater than $30,666 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX would be the most optimal regimen. For a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability that FOLFIRINOX would be optimal was 57.8%. There was no price reduction for nab-paclitaxel when GnP was optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

From a Canadian public health payer's perspective at the present time and drug prices, FOLFIRINOX is the optimal regimen on the basis of the cost-effectiveness criterion. GnP is not cost-effective regardless of the WTP threshold.

Economic Evaluations of First-Line Chemotherapy Regimens for Pancreatic Cancer: A Critical Review

Effect sizes of efficacy of first-line treatments for (metastatic) pancreas cancer are constrained, underscoring the need for evaluations of the efficacy-to-cost relationship. We critically review economic evaluations of first-line chemotherapy regimens for pancreatic cancer since the 1997 introduction of gemcitabine. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE (1997-2015), and the websites of health technology assessment agencies. Two authors independently reviewed economic studies for eligibility in this review; evaluated peer-reviewed, journal-published studies in terms of the Drummond Checklist; and critiqued the technical and scientific merit of all studies. Sixteen pharmacoeconomic evaluations were included: ten published in nine peer-reviewed journals and six on three websites. Six were on single-agent therapies and ten on combination therapies. Analyses conducted included cost-effectiveness (three studies), cost-utility (one study), or combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (12 studies). Studies diverged in results, mainly because of different assumptions, methods, inputs, and country-specific guidelines. The two most recent regimens, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and the combination of fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX), were evaluated in an indirect comparison, yielding a statistically similar benefit in overall survival but superior progression-free survival for FOLFIRINOX. NAB-P + GEM showed greater economic benefit over FOLFIRINOX. In conclusion, the divergence in results observed across studies is attributable to economic drivers that are specific to countries and their healthcare (financing) systems. No recommendations regarding the relative economic benefit of treatment regimens, general or country-specific, are made as the purpose of pharmacoeconomic analysis is to inform policy decision-making and clinical practice, not set policy or define clinical practice.

Neoadjuvant therapy versus upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer: A Markov decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is gaining acceptance as a valid treatment option for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer; however, its value for clearly resectable pancreatic cancer remains controversial. The aim of this study was to use a Markov decision analysis model, in the absence of adequately powered randomized trials, to compare the life expectancy (LE) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of neoadjuvant therapy to conventional upfront surgical strategies in resectable pancreatic cancer patients.

METHODS

A Markov decision model was created to compare two strategies: attempted pancreatic resection followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by restaging with, if appropriate, attempted pancreatic resection. Data obtained through a comprehensive systematic search in PUBMED of the literature from 2000 to 2015 were used to estimate the probabilities used in the model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of the 786 potentially eligible studies identified, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria and were used to extract the probabilities used in the model. Base case analyses of the model showed a higher LE (32.2 vs. 26.7 months) and QALE (25.5 vs. 20.8 quality-adjusted life months) for patients in the neoadjuvant therapy arm compared to upfront surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses for LE and QALE revealed that neoadjuvant therapy is favorable in 59% and 60% of the cases respectively.

CONCLUSION(S)

Although conceptual, these data suggest that neoadjuvant therapy offers substantial benefit in LE and QALE for resectable pancreatic cancer patients. These findings highlight the value of further prospective randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant therapy to conventional upfront surgical strategies.

Erlotinib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer: real-world analysis of Korean national database

Background

A randomized clinical trial has found that the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine (GEM-E) for pancreatic cancer led to a modest increase in survival. The aim of this national population-based retrospective study was to compare the effectiveness of GEM-E to GEM alone for pancreatic cancer patients in real clinical practice.

Methods

Patients with pancreatic cancer (ICD-10: C25) with prescription claims of gemcitabine or erlotinib between Jan 1, 2007 and Dec 31, 2012 were retrospectively identified from the Korean Health Insurance claims database. To be included in the study population, patients were required to have had a histological or cytological diagnosis within one year before chemotherapy. Patients treated with prior radiotherapy, surgery, or chemotherapy were excluded to reduce heterogeneity. Overall survival from the initiation of therapy and the medical costs of GEM-E and GEM were compared.

Results

A total of 4,267 patients were included in the analysis. Overall survival was not significantly longer in patients treated with GEM-E (median 6.77 months for GEM-E vs. 6.68 months for GEM, p = 0.0977). There was also no significant difference in the respective one-year survival rates (27.0 % vs. 27.3 %; p = 0.5988). Multivariate analysis using age, gender, and comorbidities as covariates did not reveal any significant differences in survival. Based on this relative effectiveness, the incremental cost per life year gained over GEM was estimated at USD 70,843.64 for GEM-E.

Conclusions

GEM-E for pancreatic cancer is not more effective than GEM in a real-world setting, and it does not provide reasonable cost-effectiveness over GEM.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2482-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: systematic review and economic evaluation of the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion

BACKGROUND

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy used in colorectal, head and neck (H&N) and other cancers. Dose adjustment is based on body surface area (BSA) but wide variations occur. Pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing is suggested to bring plasma levels into the therapeutic range to promote fewer side effects and better patient outcomes. We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the My5-FU assay for PK dose adjustment to 5-FU therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of the My5-FU assay compared with gold standard methods [high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)]; the effectiveness of My5-FU PK dosing compared with BSA; the effectiveness of HPLC and/or LC-MS compared with BSA; the generalisability of published My5-FU and PK studies; costs of using My5-FU; to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases between January and April 2014.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with arbitration and consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. We reconstructed Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for comparison of BSA and PK dosing. We developed a Markov model to compare My5-FU with BSA dosing which modelled PFS, OS and adverse events, using a 2-week cycle over a 20 year time horizon with a 3.5% discount rate. Health impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective, while costs were evaluated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 8341 records were identified through electronic searches and 35 and 54 studies were included in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness reviews respectively. There was a high apparent correlation between My5-FU, HPLC and LC-MS/mass spectrometer but upper and lower limits of agreement were -18% to 30%. Median OS were estimated as 19.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0 to 21.0] months for PK versus 14.6 (95% CI 14.1 to 15.3) months for BSA for 5-FU+folinic acid (FA); and 27.4 (95% CI 23.2 to 38.8) months for PK versus 20.6 (95% CI 18.4 to 22.9) months for BSA for FOLFOX6 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PK versus BSA studies were generalisable to the relevant populations. We developed cost-effectiveness models for mCRC and H&N cancer. The base case assumed a cost per My5-FU assay of £ 61.03. For mCRC for 12 cycles of a oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and FA (FOLFOX) regimen, there was a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.599 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 4148 per QALY. Probabilistic and scenario analyses gave similar results. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed My5-FU to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. For H&N cancer, again, given caveats about the poor evidence base, we also estimated that My5-FU is likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Quality and quantity of evidence were very weak for PK versus BSA dosing for all cancers with no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using current regimens. For H&N cancer, two studies of regimens no longer in use were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a linked evidence approach, My5-FU appears to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £ 20,000 per QALY for both mCRC and H&N cancer. Considerable uncertainties remain about evidence quality and practical implementation. RCTs are needed of PK versus BSA dosing in relevant cancers.

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC. Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC. Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2 + MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations. Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.

Cost description of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Multiple chemotherapy regimens are available for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer (mPCA). Choice of regimen is based on the patient's performance status and toxicity profile of the regimen. The objective of this study was to analyze the costs of first-line regimens to further aid in decision-making and develop a platform upon which to assess value. We calculated the monthly cost for individual standard regimens (gemcitabine, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine/erlotinib and FOLFIRINOX) and the overall treatment cost for a course of therapy based on the median progression-free survival achieved in published studies. In addition to cost of drugs, we included administration costs and costs of toxicities (including growth factor support, blood product transfusion and hospitalization for toxicities). Costs for administration and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services. Drug costs were based on Medicare average sale prices (all 2014 US$). The monthly costs for gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/erlotinib and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel were $1363, $7234, $8007 and $12,221, respectively. The overall treatment costs for a course of the same regimens based on median PFS were $5043, $46,298, $51,004 and $67,216, respectively. The choice of chemotherapy regimen for mPCA should be based on tolerability and efficacy of the regimen individualized to patient's performance status. Healthcare systems have finite resources; thus, there is increasing emphasis on metrics to define value in health care when outcomes of therapy are similar or produce marked differences in value. These data provide useful financial information to incorporate into the decision-making process.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer based on PRODIGE and MPACT trials

PURPOSE

Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-N) have shown a significant survival benefit for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer based on the PRODIGE and MPACT trials.

METHODS

A decision model was performed to compare FOLFIRINOX with GEM-N. Primary base case data were identified from PRODIGE and MPACT trials. Costs were estimated and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Finally, sensitive analysis was performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters in the model.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that FOLFIRINOX cost $37,203.75 and yielded a survival of 0.67 QALY, and GEM-N cost $32,080.59 and yielded a survival of 0.51 QALY in the entire treatment. Thus, the ICER of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N was $32,019.75 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The GEM-N regimen was more cost-effective compared with the FOLFIRINOX regimen for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer from a Chinese perspective.

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

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a 2000-gene-expression profiling (GEP) test to help identify the primary tumor site when clinicopathological diagnostic evaluation was inconclusive in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). We built a decision-analytic-model to project the lifetime clinical and economic consequences of different clinical management strategies for CUP. The model was parameterized using follow-up data from the Manitoba Cancer Registry, cost data from Manitoba Health administrative databases and secondary sources. The 2000-GEP-based strategy compared to current clinical practice resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $44,151 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The total annual-budget impact was $36.2 million per year. A value-of-information analysis revealed that the expected value of perfect information about the test's clinical impact was $4.2 million per year. The 2000-GEP test should be considered for adoption in CUP. Field evaluations of the test are associated with a large societal benefit.

Cost Effectiveness of Ofatumumab Plus Chlorambucil in First-Line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia in Canada

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of ofatumumab plus chlorambucil (OChl) versus chlorambucil in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia for whom fludarabine-based therapies are considered inappropriate from the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system in Canada.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model (3-month cycle length) used survival curves to govern progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Efficacy and safety data and health-state utility values were estimated from the COMPLEMENT-1 trial. Post-progression treatment patterns were based on clinical guidelines, Canadian treatment practices and published literature. Total and incremental expected lifetime costs (in Canadian dollars [$Can], year 2013 values), life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed. Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The discounted lifetime health and economic outcomes estimated by the model showed that, compared with chlorambucil, first-line treatment with OChl led to an increase in QALYs (0.41) and total costs ($Can27,866) and to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $Can68,647 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to the modelling time horizon and to the extrapolation of OS treatment effects beyond the trial duration. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of cost effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can100,000 per QALY gained was 59 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Base-case results indicated that improved overall response and PFS for OChl compared with chlorambucil translated to improved quality-adjusted life expectancy. Sensitivity analysis suggested that OChl is likely to be cost effective subject to uncertainty associated with the presence of any long-term OS benefit and the model time horizon.

Impact of country-specific EQ-5D-3L tariffs on the economic value of systemic therapies used in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous Canadian cost-effectiveness analyses in cancer based on the EQ-5D-3L (EuroQoL, Rotterdam, Netherlands) have commonly used U.K. or U.S. tariffs because the Canadian equivalent only just recently became available. The implications of using non-Canadian tariffs to inform decision-making are unclear. We aimed to reevaluate an earlier cost-effectiveness analysis of therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer (originally performed using U.S. tariffs) with tariffs from Canada and various other countries to determine the impact of using non-country-specific tariffs.

METHODS

We used tariffs from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Spain to derive EQ-5D-3L utilities for the 10 health states in the pancreatic cancer model. Quality-adjusted life years (qalys) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (icers) were generated, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (psas) were performed.

RESULTS

Canadian utilities are generally lower than the corresponding U.S. utilities and higher than those for the United Kingdom. Compared with the Canadian-valued scenarios, U.S. and U.K. estimates were statistically different for 3 and 9 scenarios respectively. Overall, 35% of the non-Canadian utilities (28 of 80) were significantly different, clinically, from the Canadian values. Canadian qalys were 6% lower than those for the United States and 6% higher than those for the United Kingdom. When comparing the qalys of each treatment with those of gemcitabine alone, the average percent change was +6.8% for a U.S. scenario and -7.5% for a U.K. scenario compared with a Canadian scenario. Consequently, Canadian icers were approximately 5.4% greater than those for the United States and 8.6% lower than those for the United Kingdom. Based on the psas and compared with the Canadian threshold value, the minimum willingness-to-pay threshold at which the combination chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine-capecitabine is the most cost-effective is $5,239 less than in the United States and $11,986 more than in the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of non-country-specific tariffs leads to significant differences in the derived utilities, icers, and psa results. Past Canadian EQ-5D-3L-based cost-effectiveness analyses and related funding decisions might need to be re-visited using Canadian tariffs.

Economic Evaluation of Bevacizumab for the First-Line Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme

Purpose

The Avastin in Glioblastoma trial has shown that patients newly diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) treated with bevacizumab plus radiotherapy and temozolomide versus radiotherapy and temozolomide alone showed improvement in progression-free survival, possibly leading to a new indication for first-line use of bevacizumab in GBM. The cost-utility of this new intervention remains unknown; therefore, we developed a Markov model estimating the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) from a Canadian public payer perspective.

Methods

We incorporated trial data for state transitions and treatment effects from the Avastin in Glioblastoma trial, costs and resource use data from Canadian published studies and databases, and utility parameters from published literature. We addressed uncertainty through one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, extended the model to lifetime horizon and by another arm to compare first-line versus second-line use of bevacizumab on progression, performed value of information analysis, and performed US costing sensitivity analysis.

Results

Adding bevacizumab to radiotherapy and temozolomide resulted in increases of 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and $80,000 per patient over 2-year time horizon at the base case analysis. The ICUR was $607,966/QALY (95% CI, $305,000/QALY to $2,550,000/QALY), with 0% chance of being cost effective at the $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and never going below $450,000/QALY in the one-way sensitivity analysis. The ICUR using the US costing data was $787,519/QALY. The lifetime ICUR was $439,764/QALY (95% CI, $235,000/QALY to $1,520,000/QALY), never going below $350,000/QALY in the sensitivity analysis. Second-line use of bevacizumab on progression is more effective and less expensive than its first-line use. Value of information analysis revealed that future research is unwarranted.

Conclusion

Bevacizumab has only limited effectiveness and is therefore not likely to be cost effective in treating adult patients with newly diagnosed GBM.

Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

BACKGROUND

The combination of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P+GEM) has shown superior efficacy over GEM monotherapy in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC). Independent cost-effectiveness/utility analyses of NAB-P+GEM from the payer perspective have not been conducted for the UK.

METHODS

A Markov model simulating the health outcomes and total costs was developed to estimate the life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for patients with MPC in a base case and in a probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analysis. Total cost included the cost of supportive care medications, administration, chemotherapy, disease monitoring, and adverse reactions; and was discounted at 3.5% per year. A full lifetime horizon and third party payer perspective was chosen.

RESULTS

The total cost of NAB-P+GEM was £5466 higher than the cost for GEM. Respectively, LYGs were 0.97 vs 0.79 and QALYs were 0.52 vs 0.45, with ICER of £30 367/LYG and ICUR of £78 086/QALY, confirmed by PSA.

CONCLUSIONS

The superior survival efficacy of NAB-P+GEM over GEM in the management of MPC is associated with positive cost-effectiveness and cost-utility.

Assessing the benefit-risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer

Background:

Efficacy and safety are the two considerations when characterising the effects of a new therapy. We sought to apply an innovative method of assessing the benefit–risk balance using data from a completed randomised controlled trial that compared erlotinib vs placebo added to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (NCIC CTG PA.3).

Methods:

We applied generalised pairwise comparisons with several prioritised outcome measures (e.g., one or more benefit outcomes and one or more risk outcomes). Here, the first priority outcome was overall survival (OS) time. Differences in OS that exceeded 2 months were considered clinically meaningful. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the proportion in favour of erlotinib, which can be interpreted as the net proportion of patients who have a better overall outcome with erlotinib as compared with placebo. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

In this trial 569 patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive gemcitabine plus either erlotinib or a matched placebo. Overall, the method indicated no statistically significant overall treatment effect in favour of erlotinib; if anything, the point estimate of the net proportion leaned in favour of the placebo group (overall proportion in favour of erlotinib=−3.6%, 95% CI, −14.2– 7.1% P=0.51). The net proportion was never in favour of the erlotinib group throughout all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Generalised pairwise comparisons make it possible to assess the benefit–risk balance of new treatments using a single statistical test for any number of prioritised outcomes. The benefit–risk assessment was not in favour of adding erlotinib to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.

Gastrojejunostomy in patients with unresectable pancreatic head cancer - the use of Roux loop significantly shortens the hospital length of stay

AIM: To evaluate the use of the Roux loop on the postoperative course in patients submitted for gastroenteroanastomosis (GE).

METHODS: Non-jaundiced patients (n = 41) operated on in the Department of General and Transplant Surgery in Lodz, between January 2010 and December 2011 were enrolled. The tumor was considered unresectable when liver metastases or major vascular involvement were confirmed. Patients were randomized to receive Roux (n = 21) or conventional GE (n = 20) on a prophylactic basis.

RESULTS: The mean time to nasogastric tube withdrawal in Roux GE group was shorter (1.4 ± 0.75 vs 2.8 ± 1.1, P < 0.001). Time to starting oral liquids, soft diet and regular diet were decreased (2.3 ± 0.86 vs 3.45 ± 1.19; P < 0.001; 3.3 ± 0.73 vs 4.4 ± 1.23, P < 0.001 and 4.5 ± 0.76 vs 5.6 ± 1.42, P = 0.002; respectively). The Roux GE group had a lower use of prokinetics (10 mg thrice daily for 2.2 ± 1.8 d vs 3.7 ± 2.6 d, P = 0.044; total 62 ± 49 mg vs 111 ± 79 mg, P = 0.025). The mean hospitalization time following Roux GE was shorter (7.7 d vs 9.6 d, P = 0.006). Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) was confirmed in 20% after conventional GE but in none of the patients following Roux GE.

CONCLUSION: Roux gastrojejunostomy during open abdomen exploration in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer is easy to perform, decreases the incidence of DGE and lowers hospitalization time.

Treatment of pancreatic cancer: A narrative review of cost-effectiveness studies

Cancer of the pancreas is the second most frequent digestive cancer in the US, accounting for about 44,000 new cases per year. In Europe, it is the sixth most frequent cancer, accounting for 2.8% of cancers in men and 3.2% in women. With a five-year survival of less than 10%, it is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related death. The majority of cases are diagnosed above the age of 65 and in about 60% of cases at an advanced stage, explaining that little improvement has been observed in survival over the past 30 years. Radical surgery offers the only curative treatment of pancreatic cancer. Alternative or combined therapeutic options in particular consist of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with or without radiotherapy. Palliative treatment for locally advanced disease may benefit patient's health status and quality of life. Limitations in healthcare resources, burden of treatment, and uncertainty of the net clinical benefit of adjuvant therapy, underline the need to identify the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic approaches, as well as a need to establish patient groups who benefit most from these treatments. The present paper reviews cost-effectiveness studies published on pancreatic cancer treatment.