Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma in Canada

Economic Evaluation of a Tumour-Agnostic Therapy: Dutch Economic Value of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers

BACKGROUND

Larotrectinib is the first tumour-agnostic therapy that has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Tumour-agnostic therapies are indicated for a multitude of tumour types. The economic models supporting reimbursement submissions of tumour-agnostic therapies are complex because of the multitude of indications per model.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of larotrectinib compared with standard of care in patients with cancer with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive tumour types in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A previously constructed cost-effectiveness model with a partitioned survival approach was adapted to the Dutch setting, simulating costs and effects of treatment in patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer. The cost-effectiveness model conducts a naïve comparison of larotrectinib to a weighted comparator standard-of-care arm. Dutch specific resource use and costs were implemented and inflated to reflect 2019 euros. The analysis includes a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Larotrectinib versus Dutch standard of care resulted in 5.61 incremental (QALYs) and €232,260 incremental costs, leading to an incremental cost-effectivenes ratio of €41,424/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reveals a 88% chance of larotrectinib being cost effective compared with the pooled comparator standard-of-care arm at the applicable €80,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectivenes ratio was well below the applicable threshold for diseases with a high burden of disease in the Netherlands (€80,000). At this threshold, larotrectinib was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer compared with current standard of care in the Netherlands.

Systematic literature review of clinical outcomes in adults with metastatic or advanced synovial sarcoma

Background: Synovial sarcoma (SS) is a rare, aggressive soft tissue sarcoma with a poor prognosis after metastasis. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the clinical evidence for therapeutic options for adults with metastatic or advanced SS. Materials & methods: Relevant databases were searched with predefined keywords. Results: Thirty-nine publications reported clinical data for systemic treatment and other interventions. Data on survival outcomes varied but were generally poor (progression-free survival: 1.0-7.7 months; overall survival: 6.7-29.2 months) for adults with metastatic and advanced SS. A high frequency of neutropenia with systemic treatment and low quality of life post-progression were reported. Conclusion: Reported evidence suggests poor outcomes in adults with metastatic and advanced SS and the need for the development of new treatment modalities.

Pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcomas

Pazopanib is the first and only tyrosine kinase inhibitor currently approved for the treatment of multiple histological subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Initially developed as a small molecule inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, preclinical work indicates that pazopanib exerts an anticancer effect through the inhibition of both angiogenic and oncogenic signaling pathways. Following the establishment of optimal dosing and safety profiles in early phase studies and approval for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, pazopanib was investigated in STS. A landmark phase III randomized study demonstrated improved progression-free survival with pazopanib compared to that with placebo in pretreated patients with STS of various subtypes. The efficacy of pazopanib in specific STS subtypes has been further described in real-world-based case series in both mixed and subtype-specific STS cohorts. At present, there are no clinically validated predictive biomarkers for use in selecting patients with advanced STS for pazopanib therapy, limiting the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the drug. In this review, we summarize the preclinical and clinical data for pazopanib, outline the evidence base for its effect in STS and explore reported studies that have investigated putative biomarkers.

Cost-Effectiveness of Olaratumab in Combination with Doxorubicin for Patients with Soft Tissue Sarcoma in the United States

BACKGROUND

Standard first-line treatments for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have changed little for 40 years, and outcomes have been poor. Recently, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration conditionally approved olaratumab in combination with doxorubicin (Olara + Dox) based on a randomized phase II trial that reported a significant 11.8-month improvement in median survival versus single-agent doxorubicin (Dox). The present study investigated the cost-effectiveness of Olara + Dox compared with Dox and five other standard-of-care regimens from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

An economic model was constructed to estimate costs and outcomes over patients' lifetimes from start of therapy. Progression-free and overall survival were based on survival analysis of patient-level data and a meta-analysis. Adverse-event rates were based on trials. Costs were from published sources.

RESULTS

Olara + Dox resulted in an estimated additional 1.27 life-years (LYs) compared with Dox, with an increase in total expected lifetime costs of $133,653. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated at $105,408 per LY gained; in a fully incremental analysis, all other regimens were dominated (higher costs and lower LYs or a higher ICER).

CONCLUSION

Olara + Dox is cost-effective for STS treatment compared with Dox and other standard-of-care regimens at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000 per LY and above.

Pazopanib in the management of advanced soft tissue sarcomas

Therapy of soft tissue sarcomas represents an area of significant unmet need in oncology. Angiogenesis has been explored as a potential target both preclinically and clinically, with suggestions of activity. Pazopanib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with prominent antiangiogenic effects. In a Phase II study, pazopanib demonstrated activity in strata enrolling patients with leiomyosarcomas, synovial sarcomas, or other sarcomas but not those enrolling adipocytic sarcomas. PALETTE, the pivotal Phase III trial, demonstrated improved progression-free survival versus placebo in pazopanib-treated patients previously treated for advanced soft tissue sarcomas. No survival benefit was observed, and adipocytic sarcomas were excluded. Health-related quality-of-life assessments indicated significant decrements in several areas affected by pazopanib toxicities, but no global deterioration. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicate that pazopanib therapy may or may not be cost-effective in different geographic settings. Pazopanib provides important proof-of-concept for antiangiogenic therapy in soft tissue sarcomas. Its use can be improved by further biological studies of its activity profile in sarcomas, studies of biological rational combinations, and clinicopathologic/biological correlative studies of activity to allow better drug targeting.

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.

Health-related quality-of-life results from PALETTE: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with soft tissue sarcoma whose disease has progressed during or after prior chemotherapy-a European Organization for research and treatment of cancer soft tissue and bone sarcoma group global network study (EORTC 62072)

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was an exploratory endpoint in the PALETTE trial, a global, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial of pazopanib 800 mg versus placebo as second-line or later treatment for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (N = 369). In that trial, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the pazopanib arm (median, 4.6 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; P < .001), and toxicity of pazopanib consisted mainly of fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, weight loss, and hypertension.

METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the 30-item core European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, and 12 in patients who received treatment on protocol. The primary HRQoL endpoint was the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale.

RESULTS

Compliance with HRQoL assessments was good, ranging from 94% at baseline to 81% at week 12. Differences in scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status subscale between the 2 treatment arms were not statistically significant and did not exceed the predetermined, minimal clinically important difference of 10 points (P = .291; maximum difference, 3.8 points). Among the other subscales, the pazopanib arm reported significantly worse symptom scores for diarrhea (P < .001) loss of appetite (P < .001), nausea/vomiting (P < .001), and fatigue (P = .012). In general, HRQoL scores tended to decline over time in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL did not improve with the receipt of pazopanib. However, the observed improvement in progression-free survival without impairment of HRQoL was considered a meaningful result. The toxicity profile of pazopanib was reflected in the patients' self-reported symptoms but did not translate into significantly worse overall global health status during treatment.