Comparison of Drug-Eluting Embolics versus Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of using doxorubicin-loaded drug-eluting embolic (DEE) transarterial chemoembolization versus that of using conventional transarterial chemoembolization for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analysis model was constructed over the lifespan of a payer's perspective. The model simulated the clinical course, including periprocedural complications, additional transarterial chemoembolization or other treatments (ablation, radioembolization, or systemic treatment), palliative care, and death, of patients with unresectable HCC. All clinical parameters were derived from the literature. Base case calculations, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and multiple two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case calculations for patients with a median age of 67 years (range for conventional transarterial chemoembolization: 28-88 years, range for DEE-transarterial chemoembolization: 16-93 years), conventional transarterial chemoembolization yielded a health benefit of 2.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at a cost of $125,324, whereas DEE-transarterial chemoembolization yielded 1.71 QALY for $144,816. In 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, conventional transarterial chemoembolization continued to be a more cost-effective strategy. conventional transarterial chemoembolization was cost-effective when the complication risks for both the procedures were simultaneously varied from 0% to 30%. DEE-transarterial chemoembolization became cost-effective if the conventional transarterial chemoembolization mortality exceeded that of DEE-transarterial chemoembolization by 17% in absolute values. The two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that conventional transarterial chemoembolization was cost-effective until the risk of disease progression was >0.4% of that for DEE-transarterial chemoembolization in absolute values. Our analysis showed that DEE-transarterial chemoembolization would be more cost-effective if it offered >2.5% higher overall survival benefit than conventional transarterial chemoembolization in absolute values. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DEE-transarterial chemoembolization, conventional transarterial chemoembolization yielded a higher number of QALY at a lower cost, making it the more cost-effective of the 2 modalities.

Evaluación económica del informe GENESIS-SEFH de olaratumab con doxorrubicina en el sarcoma de tejidos blandos en estadios avanzados / Economic evaluation of the GENESIS-SEFH report of olaratumab with doxorubicin in soft tissue sarcoma in advanced stages

Objetivo: Desarrollar la evaluación económica del fármaco olaratumab en el tratamiento del sarcoma de partes blandas. Método: Los datos se analizaron siguiendo las recomendaciones contenidas en el programa MADRE del modelo de informe GENESIS-SEFH. Resultados: Los resultados de supervivencia libre de progresión y supervivencia global publicados en el ensayo clínico pivotal: Tap WD y cols. (2016) fueron: la ganancia en supervivencia libre de progresión (variable principal) en términos absolutos fue de 2,5 meses, HR = 0,672; IC95% (0,442-1,021). La ganancia absoluta en supervivencia global (variable secundaria) fue de 11,8 meses, HR = 0,463; IC95% (0,301-0,710). Se realizó un análisis coste-efectividad considerando dos escenarios; escenario uno: sin aprovechamiento de viales; y escenario dos: sin aprovechamiento de viales y asociando costes no farmacológicos. En ambos casos se consideraron los costes de adquisición de los medicamentos y los datos de eficacia del ensayo clínico pivotal. En el primero determinamos una ratio coste-efectividad-incremental de 28.443,81 euros/mes libre de progresión ganado y 72.560,74 euros/año de vida ganado. En el segundo obtenemos una ratio coste-efectividad incremental de 30.879,79 euros libre de progresión ganado y 78.774,99 euros/año de vida ganado. El impacto económico estatal, por tanto, se situaría entre 61.759.592 millones de euros y 92.639.388 de euros, considerando una población diana de 800-1.200 pacientes a nivel nacional. Conclusiones: Olaratumab es un fármaco que aporta un beneficio significativo en la supervivencia global, no así en la supervivencia libre de progresión. Para poder utilizarse en el sarcoma de partes blancas y que resultase costeefectivo, el coste de adquisición del vial de 500 mg debería situarse entre 101,91 y 506,54 euros y el del vial de 190 mg entre 39,31 y 195,37 euros

Objective: The economic evaluation of the drug olaratumab is carried out in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. Method: The data were analyzed following the recommendations contained in the MADRE program of the GENESIS-SEFH report model. Results: Progression free survival and overall survival results published in the pivotal clinical trial; Tap WD et al. (2016) were improvement of 2.5 months in median progression free survival (primary endpoint) HR = 0.672; IC95% (0.442-1.021) and gain of 11.8 months in median OS (secondary endpoint) HR = 0.463; IC95% (0.301-0.710). A cost-effectiveness analyses was performed considering 2 scenarios; scenario 1: with use of whole vials and scenario 2: use of whole vials and associating non-pharmacological costs (day hospital visits, mucositis, neutropenia and dexrazoxane use). In both cases we considered the cost of drugs and the efficacy data of the pivotal clinical trial. In Scenario 1, we would have an Incremental-Cost-Effectiveness-Ratio of €28,443.81/ month of progression-free survival and €72,560.74 per year of life gained and in scenario 2 we would have an incremental-cost-effectivenessratio of €30,879.79/ progression-free survival and €78,774.99/ year of life gained. The budgetary impact of this drug would range from €61,759,592 to €92,639,388 estimated to be 800 to 1,200 patients likely to receive treatment in Spain. Conclusions: Olaratumab is a drug that provides a significant benefit in overall survival but not in progression free survival. To be used in soft tissue sarcoma and to be cost-effective, the acquisition cost of the 500 mg vial should be between €101.91 and €506.54 and that of the 190 mg vial between €39.31 and €195.37

Comparison of pulsed actinomycin D and 5-day actinomycin D as first-line chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment outcome and cost-effectiveness of pulsed actinomycin D (Act-D) and 5-day Act-D in patients with low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). METHOD: The present retrospective study included patients with low-risk GTN who received pulsed Act-D or 5-day Act-D as first-line chemotherapy at West China Second Hospital, Chengdu, China, between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2017. Complete remission rates, mean number of treatment courses, and adverse events were compared, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS: The study included 34 patients treated with pulsed Act-D and 26 patients treated with 5-day Act-D. Overall complete remission was observed in 21 (62%) patients in the pulsed Act-D group and 19 (73%) patients in the 5-day Act-D group (P=0.355); the mean number of treatment courses were 5.1 and 5.3, respectively (P=0.686). When Act-D failed, patients in each group required 4.9 and 4.6 courses, respectively, of a multi-agent regimen (P=0.545). No major adverse events were observed but moderate adverse events were more frequent in the pulsed Act-D group (P=0.011). The 5-day Act-D regimen was more expensive compared with pulsed Act-D regimen (US$7504.33 vs $5541.79), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $64 557.08 per avoidance of treatment failure. CONCLUSION: Pulsed Act-D was more cost-effective than 5-day Act-D and could be preferred when considering Act-D as chemotherapy for low-risk GTN.

Are different methotrexate regimens as first line therapy for low risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia more cost effective than the dactinomycin regimen used in GOG 0174?

OBJECTIVES: Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 0174 compared weekly intramuscular methotrexate (MTX) with biweekly pulsed intravenous dactinomycin (Act-D) as single-agent chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). Act-D had a higher rate of initial complete response (CR) (70% vs. 53%, p=0.01), but multi-day regimens of MTX have higher historic success rates. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of Act-D vs. MTX per GOG 0174 and explored multi-day MTX regimens. METHODS: A cost effectiveness decision model was constructed with data from GOG 0174. Outcome was cost per first-line treatment success expressed in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Front-line failures were assumed to receive cross-over single agent therapy, second line failures; multi-agent chemotherapy. GOG 0174 had no quality of life (QOL) evaluation, so equal QOL (utility 1.0) was assumed but varied in sensitivity analysis. A second exploratory model included 5-day and 8-day MTX regimens. RESULTS: Act-D ($18,505) was more expensive compared to weekly MTX ($8950) with an ICER of $56,215 per first-line treatment success compared to weekly MTX. Small decreases in QOL dramatically increased the ICER during sensitivity analysis. Models with multi-day MTX regimens were also more cost-effective than Act-D. If effectiveness was redefined as avoidance of multi-agent chemotherapy, weekly MTX was more effective. CONCLUSIONS: With a complete cure rate for low-risk GTN regardless of initial agent, our model supports provider hesitation toward first line Act-D for low risk GTN. While Act-D is more effective for first line treatment success, it is more costly, and does not decrease rate of multi-agent chemotherapy use.

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Between Actinomycin D Versus Methotrexate-Folinic Acid in the Treatment of Low-Risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness between actinomycin D (Act-D) and methotrexate-folinic acid (MTX-FA) in the treatment of low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) in the Thai population. STUDY DESIGN: A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective. A decision tree model was developed comparing 2 alternative treatment options: initial 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA. Treatment would be switched to another regimen in case of resistance. The outcome of interest is number of days to remission. Clinical data was obtained from our previous study in which Act-D demonstrated 100% remission rates as compared to 73.6% for MTX-FA. Cost of treatment data, which includes chemotherapeutics, accessory medications, laboratory tests, and hospital fees, was obtained from a university hospital. Patient-related travel cost and opportunity cost due to absence from work were also included. All costs were calculated to 2015 base year. RESULT: Costs per treatment cycle were $308.01 and $227.20 US dollars (USD) for 5-day Act-D and 8-day MTX-FA, respectively. Expected time toward treatment completion for Act-D was 12.6 days shorter than for MTX-FA. Expected costs toward remission for initial treatment with Act-D and MTX-FA were $1,078.04 and $1,064.56 USD, respectively, i.e., an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion. After sensitivity analysis, remission rate of lower than 72% would make initial treatment with MTX-FA more expensive than with Act-D. CONCLUSION: Treatment costs of low-risk GTN are almost equal between the 2 treatment options with different time to remission. Initial treatment with MTX-FA is slightly less expensive, but there is longer time to remission. The ICER of initial treatment with Act-D over MTX-FA is $1.07 USD/day of earlier treatment completion.

Economic and humanistic consequences of preventable bladder tumor recurrences in nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer cases.

PURPOSE: Perioperative intravesical chemotherapy following transurethral resection of bladder tumor has been underused despite level 1 evidence supporting its performance. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the economic and humanistic consequences associated with preventable recurrences in patients initially diagnosed with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using population based estimates of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer incidence, a 2-year model was developed to estimate the number of preventable recurrences in eligible patients untreated with perioperative intravesical chemotherapy. Therapy utilization rates were obtained from a retrospective database analysis and a chart review study of 1,010 patients with nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer. Recurrence rates of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer were obtained from a randomized clinical trial comparing transurethral resection of bladder tumor with or without perioperative mitomycin C. Costs were estimated using prevailing Medicare reimbursement rates. Quality adjusted life-year estimates and disutilities for complications were obtained from the literature. RESULTS: The model estimated that 7,827 bladder recurrences could be avoided if all patients received immediate intravesical chemotherapy. It estimated an economic savings of $3,847 per avoidable recurrence, resulting in an aggregate savings of $30.1 million. The model also estimated that 1,025 quality adjusted life-years are lost every 2 years due to preventable recurrences, resulting in 0.13 quality adjusted life-years (48 quality adjusted days) lost per avoidable recurrence. This translates into 0.02 quality adjusted life-years (8.1 quality adjusted days) lost per patient not receiving immediate intravesical chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Greater use of immediate intravesical chemotherapy in the United States has the potential to substantially decrease the economic and humanistic burdens of nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer.

Contemporary cost analysis of single instillation of mitomycin after transurethral resection of bladder tumor in a universal health care system.

OBJECTIVE: Although recommended management strategy for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) involves a single postoperative intravesical therapy with mitomycin C (MMC), it is uncommonly used among urologists, in part because of potential increased costs. Our objective was to perform a 5-year cost analysis of this strategy within a single-provider health care environment. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used. Input estimates for 5-year recurrence rates (50%) and MMC efficacy (absolute risk reduction of 17% and 12%) were identified via a systematic literature search and data from 2 meta-analyses. Direct costs included physician fees, MMC drug and preparation costs, transurethral bladder tumor resection (TURBT), and cystoscopy, as well as institutional hospital fees. Indirect societal costs such as work absences and productivity loss were not considered. The model was limited to a 5-year follow-up period with the following assumptions: similar rates of progression, constant recurrence rates, and no cross-over between groups. RESULTS: Overall 5-year analysis reveals that TURBT plus MMC strategy is not associated with increased costs; it saves the Medicare system $148/patient compared with TURBT alone. Calculated differences took into account avoidance of cystoscopic surveillance, urinary cytology, and reoperative and follow-up costs associated with multiple recurrences. Analysis revealed dominance of MMC usage over TURBT alone as early as 4 years from surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Routine usage of MMC after TURBT is not associated with increased costs to the health care system. In fact, there is a significant cost savings. Nonquantified patient quality of life benefits and secondary societal advantages of gained wages and productivity owing to decreases in recurrence and surgery would further increase the cost savings.

Cardioprotection against the toxic effects of anthracyclines given to children with cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the technologies used to reduce anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity in children. Also to evaluate cardiac markers to quantify cardiotoxicity, and identify cost-effectiveness studies and future research priorities. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to January 2006. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed for relevant studies and experts contacted to identify additional published references. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence was undertaken using a priori methods. RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria of the review, each considering a different cardioprotective intervention; all trials included children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and one also included children with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, all had methodological limitations. No cost-effectiveness studies were identified. One RCT and six cohort studies on the use of cardiac markers met the inclusion criteria of the review, but also had methodological limitations. Of the two RCTs that considered continuous infusion versus bolus (rapid) infusion, one found that continuous infusion of doxorubicin did not offer any cardioprotection over bolus; the other suggested that continuous infusion of daunorubicin had less cardiotoxicity than bolus. Two studies considered cardioprotective agents, one concluded that dexrazoxane prevents or reduces cardiac injury without compromising the antileukaemic efficacy of doxorubicin and the other reported a protective effect of coenzyme Q10 on cardiac function during anthracycline therapy. One RCT suggested that cardiac troponin T can be used to assess the effectiveness of the cardioprotective agent dexrazoxane. Two cohort studies considering atrial natriuretic peptide and two considering brain (B-type) natriuretic peptide suggested that these chemicals are elevated in some subgroups of children treated with anthracyclines for cancer. N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide levels were significantly elevated in children treated with anthracyclines who had cardiac dysfunction. One cohort study found that serum lipid peroxide was higher in younger children treated with doxorubicin than correspondingly aged children not receiving doxorubicin. No differences in carnitine levels were found in children treated with doxorubicin and a group of healthy children in one cohort study. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of technologies for reducing or preventing cardiotoxicity and about the use of cardiac markers in children as the evidence is limited in quantity and quality. The lack of standardisation for monitoring and reporting cardiac performance is problematic. Not all studies report effectiveness in terms of cardiac outcomes and event-free survival with supporting statistical analyses. Studies are mostly small and of short duration, making generalisation difficult. Increasing numbers of survivors of childhood cancer treated with anthracyclines will experience cardiac damage and require long-term surveillance and management. This will have an impact on cardiac services and costs. Diverse medical problems and other late sequelae that affect cardiac outcome will have an impact on other specialist services. Mechanisms to reduce or prevent cardiotoxicity from anthracycline therapy and cardiac markers to improve monitoring could alter the extent of this impact on service provision. RCTs of the different methods for reducing or preventing cardiotoxicity in children treated with anthracyclines for cancer with long-term follow-up are needed to determine whether the technologies influence the development of cardiac damage. Cost-effectiveness research is also required.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses of agents used in the treatment of AIDS and opportunistic diseases are particularly important in developing countries. PURPOSE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma (AIDS-KS) chemotherapy regimens in Brazil. METHOD: A decision-analysis model was developed, and effectiveness data were derived from randomized phase III trials evaluating pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), liposomal daunorubicin (DNX), and the ABV regimen (doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vincristine). Resource data on direct medical costs were obtained from local sources. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness estimates (defined as average costs per patient who responds completely or partially) favored PLD (US $10,272/responder) in comparison to DNX (US $16,263/responder). Regarding cost-effectiveness, the ABV regimen that is widely used in developing countries had better results when compared to both PLD (US $1,268 vs. US $10,271) and DNX (US $1,268 vs. US $16,260). The incremental cost per additional responder of using PLD instead of ABV was US $20,990. Sensitivity analyses suggest that these results hold over a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSION: ABV seems to be the most reasonable treatment option for AIDS-KS patients in resource-limited countries like Brazil.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential paclitaxel adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with node positive primary breast cancer.

An economic evaluation of paclitaxel added subsequently to doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC) adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer with lymph nodes positive is presented. Health care cost associated with AC alone vs. AC with paclitaxel was compared under Thai health care context. Based on CALGB9344, paclitaxel increased the disease-free survival (DFS) by 17%. Based on Markov simulation for 15 years, paclitaxel prolonged the patient's life by 0.30 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Such an increased effectiveness was offset by the adjuvant cost net of recurrence, follow-up, and terminal care by 221,433 Baht. This means an additional year of perfect health gained by paclitaxel is achieved through an incremental cost of 738,111 Baht. Such an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is beyond the threshold recommended by World Health Organization. In women with negative estrogen receptor that DFS was improved to 28%, the ICER of paclitaxel was reduced to 393,984 Baht per QALY.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions. REVIEW METHODS: Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: if only all things were equal.

They reduce rates of restenosis but not mortality or infarction--so are they worth it?

Role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Safe, effective treatments are needed for relapsed ovarian cancer. Goals include improving symptoms, enhancing quality of life, and prolonging survival. The plethora of agents currently available present difficult choices for physicians. The present effort seeks to examine the role of one of these agents, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. METHODS: A roundtable meeting of experts in the management of ovarian carcinoma was held to build consensus around the present and future role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for ovarian cancer and other gynecologic malignancies. RESULTS: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is effective and well tolerated in relapsed ovarian cancer. When compared with topotecan in a phase III randomized trial, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin showed several advantages: improved quality of life, fewer severe adverse events, fewer dose modifications, less hematologic support, and lower total cost per patient. In platinum-sensitive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin also produced a survival advantage. Results from prospective and retrospective studies further demonstrate the improved cardiac safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared to conventional anthracyclines. CONCLUSIONS: Based on survival and toxicity advantages and a once-monthly administration schedule, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is the first-choice nonplatinum agent for relapsed ovarian cancer. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin may also have clinical application in combination regimens for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, as consolidation/maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer, as a component of first-line therapy for ovarian cancer, and in the treatment of other gynecologic malignancies. Future clinical trials will further define and maximize the role of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of ovarian cancer and other gynecologic malignancies.

Doxorubicin liposomal pegylated: new preparation. Breast cancer: not just a question of short-term cardiac effects.

(1) There is no reference first-line chemotherapy regimen for metastatic breast cancer. Anthracycline-based combinations are generally used. One of the main problems with anthracyclines is the risk of heart failure, both during and some time after treatment. (2) A liposomal pegylated doxorubicin, an anthracycline, is now available in Europe. The aim of pegylation is supposedly to reduce the cardiotoxicity relative to standard doxorubicin. The marketing licence specifies that liposomal pegylated doxorubicin must not be used in combination with other drugs in people with metastatic breast cancer. This is the second liposomal doxorubicin preparation to be authorised for this use in France; we concluded that the first product, a non-pegylated form, offered no therapeutic advance. (3) According to the only available comparative trial, liposomal pegylated doxorubicin is no more effective than standard doxorubicin in terms of the duration or quality of survival. (4) In this trial, liposomal pegylated doxorubicin was associated with slightly fewer cardioechographic abnormalities than standard doxorubicin. (5) Other adverse events were also less common (hair loss, nausea and vomiting, and neutropenia), while some were more common (palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia, stomatitis and mucitis). Overall, 24% of patients stopped using liposomal pegylated doxorubicin because of adverse events, compared with 11% of patients receiving standard doxorubicin. (6) Unlike liposomal non-pegylated doxorubicin, the liposomal pegylated form is no more difficult than standard doxorubicin to prepare for injection. (7) In practice, when the decision is made to use doxorubicin, the standard form, at an appropriate dose, is suitable for most patients, as long as cardiac function is closely monitored. Differences in the adverse effect profile (especially hair loss) may make liposomal pegylated doxorubicin more attractive to some patients (it costs 20 times more than standard doxorubicin in France).

Pharmacoeconomics of liposomal anthracycline therapy.

Pharmacoeconomic analyses are being used with greater frequency in clinical oncology trials. These analyses provide guidelines for prioritizing competing interventions and allocating health care resources, particularly when deciding whether to use a drug with a higher acquisition cost. For liposomal anthracyclines, the competing treatments are other liposomal anthracyclines and nonliposomal chemotherapy agents with similar activity. Pharmacoeconomic analyses of data from clinical trials in patients with Kaposi's sarcoma determined that the overall cost to achieve objective response was substantially lower with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil/Caelyx [PLD]) than with liposomal daunorubicin (DaunoXome [DNX]). Additional economic analyses in patients with ovarian cancer showed that PLD has lower overall treatment costs than topotecan because it is administered less frequently and requires fewer interventions for toxicity. The decision to allocate health care resources to liposomal anthracycline treatment must therefore include consideration of cost-effectiveness and potential cost savings owing to improved tolerability.

Liposomal doxorubicin in breast cancer: new preparation. Much ado about nothing.

(1) There is no reference first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy protocol for metastatic breast cancer, but anthracycline combinations are commonly used. In addition to their myelotoxicity, anthracyclines can cause heart failure, both problems during and after treatment. (2) A liposomal formulation of doxorubicin, an anthracycline, has been developed with the aim of reducing this cardiotoxicity. The marketing terms specify that it must be used in combination with cyclophosphamide, in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. (3) According to the current evaluation file, which chiefly includes data from three comparative trials, liposomal doxorubicin is no more effective, in terms of the duration or quality of survival, than standard doxorubicin or epirubicin. (4) During comparative trials of liposomal doxorubicin, alone or in combination with cyclophosphamide, signs of cardiotoxicity, as measured by ultrasound, were slightly less frequent than with standard doxorubicin but no less frequent than with epirubicin. Given the possibility of late cardiac events, which were not studied in these trials, there is no evidence that liposomal doxorubicin is really less cardiotoxic than either standard doxorubicin or epirubicin. As regards other adverse effects, liposomal doxorubicin has no advantages over standard doxorubicin or epirubicin. (5) Liposomal doxorubicin is far more difficult to prepare than standard doxorubicin. (6) In France, liposomal doxorubicin is about 15 times more expensive than standard doxorubicin and 4 times more expensive than epirubicin. (7) In practice, standard doxorubicin can still be used, at doses appropriate for the individual patient and with cardiac monitoring.

Population-based pharmacoeconomic model for adopting capecitabine/docetaxel combination treatment for anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To model the cost-effectiveness of adopting capecitabine/docetaxel combination therapy in place of single-agent taxane therapy for women in the province of Ontario, Canada, receiving treatment for anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness and economic data were combined in a population model, from the perspective of a universal health care system. Estimates of clinical effectiveness and medical resource utilization were derived prospectively during a phase III randomized controlled trial comparing single-agent docetaxel with capecitabine/docetaxel combination therapy. Population data were obtained from the Cancer Care Ontario Registry and provincial prescription claims data. RESULTS: During 1999-2000, 542 patients were eligible for taxane monotherapy. As capecitabine/docetaxel treatment confers a median 3-month survival benefit compared with docetaxel monotherapy, the projected survival gain in these patients was 136 life-years. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrate that the survival benefit provided by the addition of capecitabine to single-agent docetaxel is afforded at a small incremental cost of Canadian $3,691 per life-year gained. Hospitalization costs for treatment of adverse events were less for patients receiving capecitabine/docetaxel combination therapy than for those receiving docetaxel monotherapy. The results were robust for adjustments in treatment costs and adverse effects costs. CONCLUSION: Due to its 3-month survival gain and small incremental treatment cost, capecitabine/docetaxel is judged to be a highly cost-effective treatment in anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast cancer. From the perspective of the Ontario health care system, the addition of capecitabine to docetaxel in this patient population is a clinically appropriate and economically acceptable treatment strategy.

The costs and efficacy of liposomal doxorubicin in platinum-refractory ovarian cancer in heavily pretreated patients.

OBJECTIVE: In clinical practice, chemotherapy agents demonstrating modest second-line activity against platinum-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC) are frequently used in patients who have received multiple prior chemotherapy agents. Whether the response rates reported in selected patients can be expected in heavily pretreated patients is not known. Similarly, the costs of palliative chemotherapy are not known. We sought to determine the response, survival, and predictors of response in an unselected cohort of PROC patients receiving liposomal doxorubicin (LD) for relapsed disease, and the overall costs of delivering liposomal doxorubicin in this setting. METHODS: In a cohort of 62 consecutive patients who initiated LD as second- or greater-line therapy for PROC, the following variables were examined: age, number of prior regimens for relapse disease, duration of first clinical remission, time from last prior treatment, dose intensity of LD received, response/clinical benefit, time to progression, toxic effects, and survival. Multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of clinical benefit and overall survival. Direct medical charges were calculated and converted to costs, and major cost drivers determined. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients received a total of 174 cycles of LD. The mean number of cycles per patient was 2 (range, 1-8); the median number of prior regimens for recurrent PROC was 2 (range, 0-8); and the median duration of the first clinical remission was 6 months. Median dose intensity of LD delivered was 11.4 mg/m(2)/week (range, 2.8-16.7 mg/m(2)/week). Nine of sixty-two patients (14.5%) had an objective clinical response by CA-125 and/or CT scan (95% confidence interval, 6-23%). Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 11% of patients. In the full cohort, median time to progression was 2.2 months, and median overall survival, 9.6 months (range, 0.2-26 months). Dose intensity was the only independent predictor of overall response. Duration of first clinical remission and number of prior salvage regimens were associated with longer overall survival. The mean total direct medical cost per cycle of LD was $5763, and the major cost drivers were hospitalizations and drug acquisition/delivery costs. CONCLUSION: LD is an active agent in PROC, even when used as greater-than-second-line therapy. Among heavily pretreated patients, delivering a dose intensity of at least 9.0 mg/m(2)/week was associated with a higher probability of response. The cost per cycle of LD is driven by hospitalizations and drug acquisition/delivery costs.