Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China

PURPOSE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab).

CONCLUSION

LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of genetic counselling for all patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE STUDY

Due to its importance for treatment and potential prevention in family members, germline testing for BRCA1/2 in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer is decisive and considered a standard of care. Maintenance therapy with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors substantially improves progression-free survival in patients with BRCA mutations and homologous recombination-deficient tumours by inducing synthetic lethality. In Switzerland, they are licensed only for these patients. Therefore, it is crucial to test patients early while they are receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. This study aimed to determine whether genetic counselling followed by homologous recombination deficiency testing is feasible for initialising maintenance therapy within eight weeks and cost-effective in daily practice in Switzerland compared to somatic tumour analysis of all patients at diagnosis.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective study included 44 patients with newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer of a Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage of IIIA-IVB diagnosed between 12/2020 and 12/2022. It collected the outcomes of genetic counselling, germline testing, and somatic Geneva test for homologous recombination deficiency. Delays in initiating maintenance therapy, total testing costs per patient, and progression-free survival were examined to assess feasibility and cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 44 patients (84%) with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer received counselling, of which 34 (77%) were tested for germline BRCA and other homologous recombination repair gene mutations. Five (15%) BRCA and three (9%) other homologous recombination deficiency mutations were identified. Eleven of the remaining 26 patients (42%) had tumours with somatic homologous recombination deficiency. The mean time to the initiation of maintenance therapy of 5.2 weeks was not longer than in studies for market authorisation (SOLO1, PAOLA, and PRIMA). The mean testing costs per patient were 3880 Swiss Franks (CHF), compared to 5624 CHF if all patients were tested at diagnosis with the myChoice CDx test (p <0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Using genetic counselling to consent patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer for germline testing fulfils the international gold standard. Subsequent somatic homologous recombination deficiency analysis complements testing and identifies more patients who will benefit from PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy. Contrary to previous health cost model studies, the procedure does not increase testing costs in the Swiss population and does not delay maintenance therapy. Therefore, all patients should be offered a primary germline analysis. The challenge for the future will be to ensure sufficient resources for prompt genetic counselling and germline testing.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer with high folate receptor-alpha expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients.

METHODS

Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOT-ov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Mini-review: Immunology in ovarian cancer

Immunotherapy for ovarian cancer has been studied for many years and programmed cell death protein 1 ligand/programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-L1/PD-1) blockade has been attempted in several clinical trials; however, the expected therapeutic effect has not been achieved. In contrast, the PD-L1/PD-1 blockade has been clinically applied to endometrial and cervical cancers, and a certain therapeutic effect has been observed. In endometrial cancer, promising outcomes have been achieved with a combination of an anti-PD-1 antibody and lenvatinib, regardless of the number of regimens, even in cases of recurrence after platinum administration. Therefore, immunotherapy is expected to have a therapeutic effect on ovarian cancer regardless of platinum resistance. In this review, considering immunotherapy for ovarian cancer, we discuss the immune mechanisms that exist in ovarian cancer and the immunotherapeutic strategies that should be developed.

Homologous Recombination Deficiency Testing to Inform Patient Decisions About Niraparib Maintenance Therapy for High-Grade Serous or Endometrioid Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

Ovarian cancer affects the cells of the ovaries, and epithelial cancer is the most common type of malignant ovarian cancer. The homologous recombination repair pathway enables error-free repair of DNA double-strand breaks. Damage of key genes associated with this pathway leads to homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), which results in unrepaired DNA and can lead to cancer. Tumours with HRD are believed to be sensitive to treatment with poly-adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as niraparib. We conducted a health technology assessment to evaluate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of HRD testing to inform patient decisions about the use of niraparib maintenance therapy for patients with high-grade serous or endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer. We also evaluated the efficacy and safety of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with HRD or homologous recombination proficiency (HRP), the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing, the budget impact of publicly funding HRD testing, and patient preferences and values.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 5-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding HRD testing in people with ovarian cancer in Ontario. We performed a literature search for quantitative evidence of patient and provider preferences with respect to HRD testing and maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors. To contextualize the potential value of HRD testing, we spoke with people with ovarian cancer.

Results

The clinical evidence review included two studies in high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (one in patients with newly diagnosed advanced cases and one in patients with recurrent cancer). The studies evaluated niraparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy and used HRD testing to group patients according to HRD status. Compared to placebo, niraparib maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, and in tumours with HRD or HRP (GRADE: High), but the studies did not compare the results between the HRD and HRP groups. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the niraparib group. We identified no studies that evaluated the clinical utility of HRD testing.We conducted a primary economic evaluation to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing for people with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer in an Ontario setting. Our analysis used a 5-year time horizon. HRD testing (for all eligible people or only for people with BRCA wild type) resulted in a lower proportion of patients receiving niraparib maintenance therapy, leading to lower costs and fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The average total cost per patient was $131,375 for no HRD testing, $126,867 for HRD testing only in people with BRCA wild type, and $127,746 for HRD testing in all eligible people. The average total QALYs per patient were 2.087 for no HRD testing, 1.971 for HRD testing only in people with BRCA wild type, and 1.971 for HRD testing in all eligible people. Our budget impact analysis suggested that assuming a high uptake rate, publicly funding HRD testing for people with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer would lead to a total saving of $9.00 million (if HRD testing were funded for all) to $12.67 million (if HRD testing were funded for people with BRCA wild type) over the next 5 years. Publicly funding HRD testing for people with recurrent cancer would lead to a total saving of $16.31 million (if HRD testing were funded for all) to $21.67 million (if HRD testing were funded for people with BRCA wild type) over the next 5 years.We identified no studies that evaluated quantitative preferences for HRD testing. Based on two studies that evaluated patients and oncologists' preferences for maintenance therapy with a PARP inhibitor in the recurrent setting, a decrease in moderate to severe adverse events was more important for patients than an improvement in progression-free survival; however, improvement in progression-free survival was more important for oncologists. Both patients and oncologists accepted some trade-offs between efficacy and safety. The people with ovarian cancer we spoke with demonstrated a shared value for access to information, prevention of cancer recurrence, and overall survival with minimal adverse effects. This was consistent with findings from another survey in patients with ovarian cancer and at least one episode of recurrence, which suggest that patients prioritize treatment benefit over some treatment adverse events in the context of niraparib maintenance therapy. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of the patient-doctor partnership, access to local health care services, and patient education.

Conclusions

In patients with newly diagnosed (advanced) or recurrent high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, niraparib maintenance therapy improved progression-free survival compared with no maintenance therapy in tumours with HRD or HRP (GRADE: High). Because we identified no studies on the clinical utility of HRD testing, we cannot comment on how it would affect patient decisions and clinical outcomes.Over a 5-year time horizon, HRD testing for people with BRCA wild type could save $4,509 per person and lead to a loss of 0.116 QALY. The findings of our economic analyses are dependent on assumptions about the use of niraparib following HRD testing. We estimate that publicly funding HRD testing would lead to a total saving of $9 million to $12.67 million for newly diagnosed cancer, and a total saving of $16.31 million to $21.67 million for recurrent cancer over 5 years, assuming the use of niraparib maintenance therapy would be reduced following HRD testing.Patients prioritized decreasing the risk of moderate to severe adverse events of maintenance therapy with PARP inhibitors over improving progression-free survival, and oncologists prioritized improving progression-free survival over decreasing the risk of moderate to severe adverse events. However, both patients and oncologists were open to accepting certain trade-offs between treatment efficacy and toxicity. The people we interviewed, who had lived experience with ovarian cancer and genetic testing, valued the potential clinical benefits of HRD testing for themselves and their family members. They emphasized patient education as an important consideration for public funding in Ontario.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biomarker Testing to Guide First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance for Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Response to First-Line Platinum Chemotherapy in the USA

BACKGROUND

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance treatments are available for platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. Olaparib (O) is available for BRCA mutation patients or in combination with bevacizumab (O+B) for patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD+); niraparib (N) is available for all patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of biomarker testing and maintenance treatments (mTx) with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer in the USA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten strategies were evaluated (S1-S10), representing biomarker testing (none, BRCA or HRD), and mTx (O, O+B, N or B). PAOLA-1 data were used to build a model estimating progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2) and overall survival for O+B. PFS was modelled through mixture cure models; PFS2 and overall survival were modelled by standard parametric models. Hazard ratios of PFS for O+B versus B, N and O were obtained from the literature to estimate PFS for B, N and O. PFS2 and OS for B, N and O were informed by PFS benefits.

RESULTS

S2 (no testing, B) had the lowest cost while S10 (HRD testing, O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD-) had the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). All niraparib strategies were dominated. S2, S4 (BRCA testing, O for BRCA+ and B for BRCA-), S6 (BRCA testing, olaparib plus bevacizumab for BRCA+ and bevacizumab for BRCA-) and S10 were the non-dominated strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,095/QALY, $33,786/QALY and $52,948/QALY for S4 versus S2, S6 versus S4 and S10 versus S6, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Homologous recombination deficiency testing followed by O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD- is a highly cost-effective strategy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. A HRD biomarker-guided approach provides most QALYs with good economic value.

Current Issues in the Management of Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced-Stage High-Grade Serous Carcinoma of the Ovary

Ovarian cancer is the most common cause of mortality in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Advanced-stage high-grade serous carcinoma accounts for most ovarian cancer cases. Current issues in the management of patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer include decisions on primary versus interval cytoreduction, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, maintenance therapy, incorporation of bevacizumab, and germline and somatic genetic testing. Evidence and guidelines regarding these topics are addressed in this review.

The economic value of knowing BRCA status: BRCA testing for optimizing treatment in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to estimate the incremental lifetime effects, costs, and net monetary benefit (NMB) of knowing BRCA information for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) patients in a given year and the cumulative savings of yearly hypothetical cohort testing over 16 years. We compared two strategies: (1) 'with BRCA information' and (2) 'without BRCA information.'

METHODS

Incremental NMB (INMB) was calculated as the average net monetized benefit of knowing BRCA status. The net monetized value (cumulative INMB) of knowing BRCA information was estimated by multiplying the INMB with the eligible ROC patients in year 2020 and extended for potential ROC patients over 16 yearly hypothetical cohorts of ROC patients.

RESULTS

Knowing BRCA information for ROC patients provided an additional monetized value of $3,528 in (payer) and $3,194 (society). Escalated to all ROC patients in the U.S. and future incidence ROC estimates, knowing BRCA information resulted in a lifetime cumulative INMB of $35.6 million (payer) and $32.2 million (society) for the 2020 cohort; and yielded an accumulated value of $97.3 million (payer) and $88.0 million (society) over 16 yearly hypothetical cohorts of ROC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The economic value of knowing BRCA status of all U.S. ROC patients provides short-term and long-term evidence for optimizing treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy following interval cytoreductive surgery for stage III-IV ovarian cancer from a randomized controlled phase III trial in Korea (KOV-HIPEC-01)

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) following interval cytoreductive surgery (ICS) for stage III-IV ovarian cancer from a randomized controlled phase III trial.

METHODS

A comparative cost-effective analysis was performed using a Markov health-state transition model derived from the current trial cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01091636). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated by dividing the incremental costs by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with a time horizon of 10 years. Costs were calculated from the perspective of Korean healthcare, and health utility values were extracted from published sources.

RESULTS

Based on data from the trial, the mean QALY in the ICS group was 7.16 compared to 10.8 in ICS followed by the HIPEC group. With an incremental QALY of 3.64, the ICS followed by HIPEC, was estimated to obtain an ICER of KRW 954,598 (USD 708.3) per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the study suggest that ICS followed by HIPEC, is cost-effective with a significant gain in QALYs. These results may support the current reimbursement of HIPEC from Korean insurance services and the management of long-term conditions.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Germline and Somatic BRCA Testing in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Background

BRCA testing is necessary for establishing a management strategy for ovarian cancer. Several BRCA testing strategies, including germline and somatic testing, are implemented in clinical practice in Korea. We aimed to comparatively evaluate their cost-effectiveness from patients' perspective.

Methods

We developed a decision model comprising five BRCA testing strategies implemented in Korea: (1) germline testing first, followed by somatic tumor testing for patients without a germline variant; (2) somatic testing first, followed by germline testing for patients with a variant detected by somatic testing; (3) both germline and somatic testing; (4) germline testing alone; and (5) somatic testing alone, with no testing as the comparator. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of key parameters.

Results

Assuming a willingness-to-pay of $20,000 per progression-free life-year gain (PF-LYG), all five strategies were considered cost-effective. Strategy 4 was the most cost-effective option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2,547.7 per PF-LYG, followed by strategy 1, with an ICER of $3,978.4 per PF-LYG. Even when the parameter values were varied within the possible range, the ICERs of all strategies did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusions

Considering the importance of knowing a patient's BRCA gene status, germline testing first, followed by somatic testing, may be a reasonable option.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab Compared with Bevacizumab Monotherapy for the First-Line Maintenance Treatment of Homologous Recombination Deficiency-Positive Advanced Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the PAOLA-1 trial, olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated significant clinical benefit following partial or complete response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive ovarian cancer. Our study evaluated the cost effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as a maintenance treatment for women in this population.

METHODS

Our model was a cohort-level partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon from a US healthcare system perspective. Its four health states were progression-free, post first progression, post second progression, and death, modeled using time to first progression (PFS1), second progression (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) from PAOLA-1. We modeled PFS1 through mixture survival modeling, and PFS2 and OS by fitting standard parametric models. Time-on-treatment was sourced directly from PAOLA-1, with treatment capped at 24 months for olaparib and 15 months for bevacizumab. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, biomarker testing, and subsequent treatments. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the results.

RESULTS

Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; +2.89) and life-years (LYs; +3.43) at an incremental cost of $164,209, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $56,863 per QALY. Olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 97.0% probability of being cost effective compared with bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab led to clinically significant increases in progression-free survival, resulting in substantial predicted LYs and QALYs gained, while being cost effective in the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with HRD in the US.

Germline Testing and Somatic Tumor Testing for BRCA1/2 Pathogenic Variants in Ovarian Cancer: What Is the Optimal Sequence of Testing?

In 2020, ASCO recommended that all women with epithelial ovarian cancer have germline testing for BRCA1/2 mutations, and those without a germline pathogenic variant (PV) should have somatic tumor testing to determine eligibility for a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor. Consequently, the majority of patients with ovarian cancer will have both germline testing and somatic testing. An alternate strategy is tumor testing first and then germline testing if there is a PV in the tumor and/or significant family history. The objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two testing strategies.

Tumor testing for BRCA pathogenic variants is an efficient, cost-effective triage for germline testing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation in china

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as the maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of typical patients with ovarian cancer in the SOLO2 trial. The Weibull survival model was employed to fit the Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities of the olaparib and placebo strategies, respectively. The clinical and direct costs data were derived from randomized clinical trials and published reports. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated over a 10-year lifetime horizon. Meanwhile, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the model’s outcomes.

Results: Overall, the incremental effectiveness and cost of olaparib versus placebo were 0.56 QALYs and $43,292.92, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $77,620.56/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($31,498.70/QALY). The results were sensitive to the cost of olaparib and utility of PFS. Scenario analyses suggested that when the cost of olaparib was reduced by 60%, ICER decreased to $30,611.52/QALY, lower than the WTP threshold of China.

Conclusion: The findings from the present analysis suggest that olaparib with a 60% discount as maintenance therapy might be cost effective in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Background: PARP inhibitors have shown significant improvement in progression-free survival, but their costs cast a considerable financial burden. In line with value-based oncology, it is important to evaluate whether drug prices justify the outcomes.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate PARP inhibitors on 1) cost-effectiveness against the standard care, 2) impact on cost-effectiveness upon stratification for genetic characteristics, and 3) identify factors determining their cost-effectiveness, in four cancer types.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library using designated search terms, updated to 31 August 2021. Trial-based or modeling cost-effectiveness analyses of four FDA-approved PARP inhibitors were eligible. Other studies known to authors were included. Reference lists of selected articles were screened. Eligible studies were assessed for methodological and reporting quality before review.

Results: A total of 20 original articles proceeded to final review. PARP inhibitors were not cost-effective as recurrence maintenance in advanced ovarian cancer despite improved performance upon genetic stratification. Cost-effectiveness was achieved when moved to upfront maintenance in a new diagnosis setting. Limited evidence indicated non–cost-effectiveness in metastatic breast cancer, mixed conclusions in metastatic pancreatic cancer, and cost-effectiveness in metastatic prostate cancer. Stratification by genetic testing displayed an effect on cost-effectiveness, given the plummeting ICER values when compared to the “treat-all” strategy. Drug cost was a strong determinant for cost-effectiveness in most models.

Conclusions: In advanced ovarian cancer, drug use should be prioritized for upfront maintenance and for patients with BRCA mutation or BRCAness at recurrence. Additional economic evaluations are anticipated for novel indications.

The effect of PARP inhibitors in homologous recombination proficient ovarian cancer: meta-analysis

BRCA1/2 mutations and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) predispose to increased sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor treatment. Our aim was to evaluate the PARP inhibitors effect on progression free survival (PFS) in a subpopulation with homologous recombination proficient status (HRD-BRCA-). A systematic literature search was performed for all studies reporting on the effect of PARP inhibitors regarding PFS in the HRD-BRCA- subpopulation, in patients with epithelial ovarian, tubal or primary peritoneal cancers (EOC). Five studies were included, enrolling a population of 3413 patients, with 1070 of them being HRD-BRCA-. PARP inhibitors were effective in the treatment of EOC, regardless of HRD and BRCA status or line of therapy. The estimated pooled effect hazard ratio (HR), assessing PFS for PARP inhibitors compared with control, was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.65-0.88, I² = 46%) in the HRD-BRCA- subpopulation. Comparing both subpopulations with HRD positive status (HRD+ BRCA+, HRD+ BRCA-) versus the HRD-BRCA-subpopulation, we have found statistically significant differences in the effect on PFS (P < 0.05 for every interaction test) favouring HRD positive subpopulations (HRD+ BRCA+, HRD+ BRCA-). In the HRD-BRCA- subpopulation of patients, PARP inhibitors used as the second- or later-line of therapy showed more pronounced effect then when given as first line treatment (P = 0.04). Treatment of EOC with PARP inhibitors showed a significant effect regarding PFS in the HRD-BRCA- subpopulation, although a much higher benefit was evident for patients with HRD+ status (HRD+ BRCA+ and HRD+ BRCA-). In the HRD- subpopulation second line PARP inhibitor treatment showed greater benefit compared to first line PARP inhibitor treatment.

Perspectives on Ovarian Cancer 1809 to 2022 and Beyond

Unlike many other malignancies, overall survival for women with epithelial ovarian cancer has improved only modestly over the last half-century. The perspectives presented here detail the views of a gynecologic oncologist looking back and the view of the academic editor looking forward. Surgical beginnings in 1809 are merged with genomics, surgical advances, and precision therapy at present and for the future. Presentations in this special issue focus on factors related to the diagnosis of ovarian cancer: (1) markers for the preoperative assessment of primary and metastatic ovarian tumors, (2) demonstrations of the presence of pelvic fluid in ultrasound studies of ovarian malignancies, (3) the effects of age, menopausal status, and body habitus on ovarian visualization, (4) the ability of OVA1 to detect ovarian cancers when Ca125 was not informative, (5) the detection of tumor-specific changes in cell adhesion molecules by tissue-based staining, (6) presentation of a high discrimination model for ovarian cancer using IOTA Simple Rules and CA125, (7) review of low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary, and (8) a comprehensive case report on ovarian carcinosarcoma.

Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in the Treatment Armamentarium of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Time to End the Dichotomy

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is an incurable disease with over 75% of the patients developing recurrence in the peritoneum. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a promising treatment option for both first-line therapy and treatment of recurrence. In this article, we review the rationale and current evidence for performing HIPEC and the role of HIPEC in the light of targeted systemic therapies. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> There are few randomized trials and several retrospective studies on the role of HIPEC in the management of EOC. A 12-month-overall survival (OS) benefit of the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS) was demonstrated in 1 randomized trial following which HIPEC has been included as a treatment option for this indication in several national/international guidelines. One retrospective propensity score-matched analysis showed a 16-month OS benefit of adding HIPEC to primary CRS. One randomized trial showed no benefit of the addition of carboplatin HIPEC to secondary CRS over secondary CRS alone. For patients undergoing primary CRS and secondary CRS for recurrence, the results of ongoing randomized trials are needed to define the role of HIPEC in these situations. All clinical trials have shown that the morbidity of HIPEC performed after CRS is acceptable. Along with the emergence of HIPEC as a promising surgical therapy, targeted therapies like bevacizumab and poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors have been developed that have shown a survival benefit in selected patients. In principle, HIPEC and targeted therapies work in different ways and it is plausible to assume that their benefit could be additive, and their combination should be evaluated in clinical trials. The impact of prognostic factors like the disease extent, pathological response to systemic chemotherapy (SC), the histological subtype and molecular profile on the benefit of HIPEC, and targeted therapies has not been evaluated in clinical trials. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> HIPEC is an important therapeutic strategy in the treatment of EOC. While its role in patients undergoing interval CRS has been established, the results of ongoing randomized trials are needed to define its benefit at other time points. The morbidity of HIPEC in addition to CRS is acceptable. More research is needed to define subgroups that benefit most from HIPEC based on the extent of disease, response to SC, histology, and molecular profile. The combination of HIPEC and maintenance therapies should be evaluated in well-designed randomized clinical trials that evaluate not just the survival benefit and morbidity but also the cost-effectiveness of each therapy.