Association between event-free survival and overall survival in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Aim: This study evaluated event-free survival (EFS) as a surrogate outcome for overall survival (OS) in neoadjuvant therapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). Methods: Meta-regression analyses based on a targeted literature review were used to evaluate the individual- and trial-level associations between EFS and OS. Results: In the individual-level analyses, 3-year EFS was a significant predictor of 5-year OS (p < 0.01; coefficient of determinations [R2]: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68-0.91]). Additionally, there was a statistically significant association between the treatment effect on EFS and OS at the trial level (p < 0.001; R2: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.45-0.82]). Conclusion: This study demonstrates significant associations between EFS and OS and suggests that EFS is a valid surrogate for OS following neoadjuvant therapy for eTNBC.

What is this article about? Studies of cancer therapies typically use patient survival to understand whether a treatment is helpful, such as overall survival (time from treatment to death) and event-free survival (time from treatment until the cancer progresses). Only using overall survival can slow clinical trials and the ability to assess whether new treatments may be useful. This study examined whether event-free survival was a good surrogate outcome for overall survival in studies of neoadjuvant therapy for early stage, triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). Neoadjuvant therapy is used to shrink a tumor before the definitive surgery, and TNBC is a type of breast cancer lacking three common hormone receptors that treatments target. To accomplish this, we first searched for published clinical trials and observational studies that reported overall and event-free survival and extracted their data. Then we tested the association between the two survival outcomes to determine if event-free survival could be used to accurately predict overall survival. Using data from randomized clinical trials, we also tested whether a treatment's effect on event-free survival could predict its effect on overall survival. What did this study find? We found that event-free survival at three years could predict overall survival at 5 years, and that there was a meaningful relationship between a treatment's effect on event-free and overall survival for eTNBC following neoadjuvant treatment. What do the results of the study mean? The results suggest that event-free survival is an accurate and useful surrogate for overall survival following neoadjuvant treatment of eTNBC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Single-Agent Pembrolizumab for High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The randomized phase III KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated that addition of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy provided a significant improvement in event-free survival and a favorable trend in overall survival for high-risk early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment and continued as a single-agent adjuvant treatment after surgery vs. neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk eTNBC in the USA. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from a US third-party public healthcare payer perspective. A multistate transition model was developed using efficacy and safety data from the KEYNOTE-522 trial. The model included four mutually exclusive health states: event-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and death to simulate patients' lifetime disease course. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated on the basis of EuroQoL-5 Dimensions utility data collected in KEYNOTE-522. Costs for drug acquisition/administration, adverse events, disease management, and subsequent therapies were reported (2021 US dollars). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main results. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab resulted in expected gains of 3.37 life years (LYs) and 2.90 QALYs, and an incremental cost of $79,046 versus chemotherapy. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $27,285, which is lower than all commonly cited US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust over plausible values of key model inputs and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment and continued as a single-agent adjuvant treatment after surgery is considered a cost-effective option for high-risk eTNBC in the USA.

Conceptual Framework and Methodological Challenges for Modeling Effectiveness in Oncology Treatment Sequence Models.

In this review, we summarize the challenges faced by existing oncology treatment sequence decision models and introduce a general framework to conceptualize such models. In the proposed framework, patients with cancer receive at least two lines of therapy (LOTs) followed by palliative care throughout their lifetime. Patients cycle through progression-free and progressive disease health states in each LOT before death. Under this framework, four broad aspects of modeling effectiveness of treatment sequences need exploration. First, disease progression, treatment discontinuation, and the relationship between the two events should be considered. Second, the effectiveness of each LOT depends on its placement in a treatment sequence as the effectiveness of later LOTs may be influenced by the earlier LOTs. Third, the treatment-free interval (TFI; time between discontinuation of earlier LOT and initiation of later LOT) may impact a therapy's effectiveness. Fourth, in the absence of head-to-head trials directly comparing LOTs, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of outcomes for a specific LOT or even for the entire treatment sequence is important to consider. A search of decision models that estimated effectiveness of at least two lines of oncology therapy was conducted in PubMed (N = 20) and technology appraisals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (N = 26) to assess four methodological aspects related to the model framework: (1) selection of outcomes for effectiveness in a treatment sequence, (2) approaches to adjust the efficacy of a treatment in consideration of its place in the sequence, (3) approaches to address TFIs between LOTs, and (4) incorporation of ITCs to estimate comparators' effectiveness in the absence of direct head-to-head evidence. Most models defined health states based on disease progression on different LOTs while estimating treatment duration outside of the main model framework (30/46) and used data from multiple data sources in different LOTs to model efficacy of a treatment sequence (41/46). No models adjusted efficacy for the characteristics of patients who switched from an earlier LOT to a later LOT or adjusted for the impact of prior therapies, and just six models considered TFIs. While 11 models applied ITC results to estimate efficacy in comparator treatment sequences, the majority limited the ITC to one LOT in the sequence. Thus, there is substantial room to improve the estimation of effectiveness for treatment sequences using existing data when comparing effectiveness of alternative treatment sequences.

Budget impact of capmatinib for adults with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring a MET exon 14 skipping mutation in the United States.

AIMS: To estimate the budget impact of adding capmatinib, the first FDA approved MET inhibitor, to a US commercial or Medicare health plan for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) whose tumors have a mutation that leads to MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping. METHODS: Target population size was estimated using published epidemiology data. Clinical data were obtained from the GEOMETRY mono-1 capmatinib trial and published trials. Treatments in the market mix included crizotinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and chemotherapy. Uptake of capmatinib and testing rates were based on market research. All costs (drug acquisition and administration, pre-progression, progression, terminal care, adverse event, and testing) were estimated based on public sources (2020 USD). RESULTS: The number of patients eligible for capmatinib in the first three years was estimated to be 2-3 in a hypothetical 1 million member commercial plan and 34-44 in a hypothetical 1 million member Medicare plan each year. The estimated total budget impact ranged from $9,695 to $67,725 for a commercial plan and $141,350 to $985,695 for Medicare. With capmatinib included, a marginal per member per month budget impact was estimated (commercial: $0.0008 to $0.0056; Medicare: $0.0118 to $0.0821). Capmatinib inclusion resulted in lower medical costs (commercial: -$0.0003 to -$0.0007; Medicare: -$0.0037 to -$0.0106), partially offsetting increased drug costs ($0.0011 to $0.0064; $0.0154 to $0.0928, respectively), and were primarily driven by reductions in progression and terminal care costs (-$0.0003 to -$0.0009; -$0.0037 to -$0.0125, respectively). The results were most sensitive to capmatinib market share, capmatinib price, and treatment duration. LIMITATIONS: Certain assumptions were applied to the model to account for inputs with limited evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budget impact of including capmatinib for mNSCLC with a METex14 skipping mutation is minimal, and the increased drug costs were partially offset by savings in AEs, and progression-related and terminal care costs.

Efficacy of Brodalumab for Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Canadian Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several treatments for plaque psoriasis are available, but it remains challenging for physicians to make informed treatment decisions due to a lack of head-to-head trials. OBJECTIVES: This network meta-analysis (NMA) compares the efficacy of brodalumab to other biologic agents in Canada for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before October 2017 was conducted to populate the NMA. Comparators included etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab, and placebo. The primary outcome was the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) response at the end of induction phase. A random effects Bayesian multinomial likelihood and probit link model analyzed PASI 75, 90, and 100 responses. Inconsistency and heterogeneity were assessed. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore potential effect modifiers like baseline PASI score, age, and weight. RESULTS: A total of 43 RCTs were included. Brodalumab 210 mg had significantly better PASI response than etanercept, ustekinumab, adalimumab, secukinumab, and guselkumab and comparable responses to infliximab and ixekizumab. Relative risk of PASI 90 response for brodalumab varied from 2.84 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 2.35-3.52, P < .05) to 0.99 (95% CrI: 0.88-1.11, ns) compared to etanercept and ixekizumab. This was similar across PASI 75 responses, but a larger relative risk between brodalumab and all comparators except ixekizumab was observed for PASI 100. No significant heterogeneity or inconsistencies were identified. The results were consistent across sensitivity analyses, indicating robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: Brodalumab 210 mg has efficacy superior to most biologic agents for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Canada.

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the originator follitropin alpha compared to the biosimilars for assisted reproduction in Germany.

Background and objectives: Demand for assisted reproduction technology (ART) in Germany is high, with 100,844 treatment cycles during 2016. Many ART procedures involve ovarian stimulation with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). Recently, biosimilar FSH products have become available. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the recombinant FSH Gonal-f® (Originator) in comparison to biosimilar follitropin alfa, Bemfola® (Biosimilar 1) and Ovaleap® (Biosimilar 2), from a German payer perspective in terms of cost per live birth. Methods: A decision tree model was developed, based on one cycle of assisted reproduction, to compare the original product to biosimilars. Clinical inputs, including live birth rates and adverse event rates were obtained from published randomized trials. Cost inputs were obtained from publicly available German sources. Clinical inputs, model structure and methodology were based on previous publications and validated by a clinical expert. Results: Results indicated that the live birth rate is higher for the Originator compared to Biosimilar 1 (40.7% vs 32.1% respectively), and Biosimilar 2 (32.2% vs 26.8%). The average cost per live birth for women treated with the Originator was estimated to be lower than those who were treated with biosimilars: Originator vs Biosimilar 1 (€10,510 vs €12,192), Originator vs Biosimilar 2 (€12,590 vs €13,606). The analysis also found that the Originator is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness of €4,168 and €7,540 per additional live birth versus Biosimilar 1 and Biosimilar 2 respectively. Sensitivity analysis indicated probabilities of pregnancy, embryo transfer and live birth, were key drivers of model costs. Scenario analysis confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes. Conclusion: This study suggests that treatment with the Originator could result in a lower cost per live birth in comparison to biosimilars. Further analysis using real-world data, when available, is recommended to validate the results of the present study.

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema: a UK healthcare perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ranibizumab and aflibercept are alternative anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents approved for the treatment of visual impairment (VI) due to diabetic macular edema (DME). OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a UK healthcare perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab 0.5 mg pro re nata (PRN) and ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat and extend (T&E) compared with aflibercept 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses (2q8) in the treatment of VI due to DME. METHODS: A Markov model previously reviewed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was used to simulate the long-term outcomes and costs of treating DME. Health states were defined by increments of ten letters in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), with a 3-month cycle length. Patients could gain (or lose) a maximum of two health states between cycles. A 3-year treatment time frame and a lifetime horizon were used. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Patient baseline characteristics and the efficacy of ranibizumab PRN were derived using data from the RESTORE study. The relative efficacies of ranibizumab PRN, ranibizumab T&E, and aflibercept were assessed with a network meta-analysis. Different utilities were assigned based on BCVA and whether the treated eye was the better- or the worse-seeing eye. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Lifetime costs per patient of treating DME were £20,019 for ranibizumab PRN, £22,930 for ranibizumab T&E, and £25,859 for aflibercept 2q8. Ranibizumab was dominant over aflibercept, with an incremental gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings of £5,841 (PRN) and £2,930 (T&E) compared with aflibercept. Ranibizumab PRN and ranibizumab T&E had 79% and 67% probability, respectively, of being cost-effective relative to aflibercept at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. When assuming the higher end of PRN injection frequency (15.9 over 3 years), the cost savings associated with ranibizumab were £3,969. CONCLUSION: From a UK healthcare perspective, ranibizumab provides greater health gains with lower overall costs than aflibercept in patients with VI due to DME.