Is paclitaxel and cisplatin a cost-effective first-line therapy for advance ovarian carcinoma?

Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant chemotherapy is a key component of advanced ovarian cancer treatment, when surgery alone is not sufficient. Recurrence is common in ovarian cancer patients and most women require prolonged second-line and higher-line chemotherapy. With newer targeted therapies, modest improvements in survival and quality of life may be attained at substantial cost, but the relative economic efficiency of these newer agents remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We undertook this systematic review to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various chemotherapeutic and targeted therapy alternatives for ovarian cancer.

METHODS

We searched Medline, PubMed, and Embase databases to identify economic evaluations published over the last 18 years (1996-2014). From the 2513 unique papers retrieved, 74 full texts were selected for full-text review based on a priori eligibility criteria. Two authors independently reviewed these articles to determine eligibility for final review. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies were included for reporting. Administration of intravenous cisplatin-paclitaxel combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment was the most cost-effective alternative (2014 US dollars [USD] equivalent incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] ~US$17,000-US$27,000 per life year gained [LYG]), while the use of bevacizumab did not demonstrate similar value for money (2014 USD equivalent ICER was greater than US$200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). For second-line treatment, the use of platinum-paclitaxel combination or platinum monotherapy was cost-effective compared with platinum monotherapy or best supportive care, respectively, in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease. For patients with partial platinum sensitivity, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus trabectedin may be cost-effective (2014 USD equivalent ICER was ~US$57,000-US$62,000 per QALY) compared with PLD alone. For recurrent platinum-resistant cases, there was limited evidence to conclude the most valuable treatment; though one study showed that best supportive care was most cost-effective, while second-line monotherapy with doxorubicin (2014 USD equivalent ICER was ~US$90,000 per LYG) may also be cost-effective compared with best supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite varying methodological approaches and multiple sources for cost and effectiveness inputs, this systematic review demonstrated that standard platinum-taxane combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment was most cost-effective. There was unanimous agreement that bevacizumab was not a cost-effective front-line therapy compared with platinum-taxane combination for the overall ovarian cancer population, though its use in the high-use population may yield better value. For second-line treatment, platinum-based chemotherapy remained cost-effective among patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive disease, while there was limited evidence to conclude the most valuable treatment alternative among patients with recurrent platinum-resistant disease. Future research incorporating real-world data is essential to corroborate findings from trial-based economic evaluations. In addition, for improving consistency in reporting and quality of studies, incorporating QALYs in this population is important, especially since chemotherapy is administered for lengthy periods of time.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy versus Primary Surgery in Elderly Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer has increased in recent years. There is uncertainty about NAC's effectiveness and no study of its cost-effectiveness compared with that of standard primary debulking surgery (PDS).

OBJECTIVES

To seek answers to three important questions: 1) What is the lifetime cost of treating elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer, based on the primary treatment received? 2) Are the extra costs expended by the NAC group worth any extra survival advantage? 3) Would NAC potentially benefit a particular subgroup and serve as a cost-effective first-line treatment approach?

METHODS

A cohort of elderly women (≥65 years) with stage III/IV ovarian cancer was identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. Cost analysis was conducted from a payer perspective, and direct medical costs incurred by Medicare were integrated for each patient. Cumulative treatment costs were estimated with a phase-of-care approach, and effectiveness was measured as years of survival. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and propensity-score-adjusted net monetary benefit regression was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of NAC per life-year gained. Analyses were further stratified by risk group categorization on the basis of tumor stage, patient age, and comorbidity score.

RESULTS

Average lifetime cost for treatment with NAC was $17,417 more than with PDS. With only 0.1 incremental life-year gained, the ICER estimate was $174,173. Stratification, however, helped to delineate the treatment effect. Patients in the high-risk subgroup incurred $34,390 and 0.8 life-years more than did patients in the PDS subgroup, with a corresponding ICER of $42,987. In the non-high-risk subgroup, NAC use was dominated by PDS (more costly, less effective).

CONCLUSIONS

Administering NAC before surgery to patients in the high-risk subgroup was cost-effective at "normal" levels of willingness to pay, but not for the overall sample or for patients in the non-high-risk subgroup.

Paclitaxel: cost-effectiveness in ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer accounts for a significant burden of healthcare costs worldwide. Therapy of this disease consists of a combined surgical and chemotherapeutic approach. Remarkable advances in chemotherapy have been made with the introduction of new agents such as paclitaxel. Based on positive clinical data from randomized trials, numerous cost studies have been undertaken to analyze the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel. Reviewing all the available cost studies, the authors conclude that paclitaxel plus cisplatin treatment is cost effective. Paclitaxel demonstrated survival and utility gains in combination with cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients with Stage II-IV ovarian cancer compared with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. Incremental costs of USD 6600-22,000 per life year gained are within an accepted range for new treatments.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology: methodological quality and trends

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate methodological quality and trends of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) published in gynecologic oncology.

METHODS

A medical literature search of articles from 1966 through 2002 was performed to identify original, English-language articles that included economic analyses in gynecologic oncology. We included articles that were cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses or performed these analyses as part of their study. Ten methodological principles that should be incorporated in CEAs were assessed for each study. Each article was given a score of 0, 1, or 2 for each of the 10 methodological principles (max score = 20). Data were analyzed using the Student t test, ANOVA, and linear regression.

RESULTS

We screened 693 articles to identify 68 that met our inclusion criteria. The articles focused on cervical cancer (n = 53; 78%), ovarian cancer (n = 11; 16%), uterine cancer (n = 2; 3%), and general perioperative care (n = 2; 3%). The mean (+/-SD) methodological principle score was 16.1 (+/-4.1) and we observed a significant improvement in the total score over time (P = 0.01). Primary CEA's (CEA identified as the objective of the study) were of higher quality than secondary CEA's (primary objective of the study was not CEA but CEA was included in the study; total scores 18.2 vs. 11.6, respectively; P<0.0001). Studies with at least one investigator in public health or healthcare economies also had higher quality (mean total score 17.7 vs. 15.2; P=0.006). The most common limitations of published CEAs were in methodology or presentation of incremental analyses, sensitivity analyses, and discounting.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analyses in gynecologic oncology showed significant improvement in quality over the last two decades. Despite this progress, methodological improvement is still needed in the areas of incremental comparisons and sensitivity analysis. Understanding the methodology of cost-effectiveness analysis is critical for researchers, editors, and readers to accurately interpret results of the growing body of CEA articles.

Economic evaluation of letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of initiation of second-line hormone therapy with letrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women in Canada, compared to megestrol acetate.

METHODS

A modified Markov model, incorporating seven health states, was designed to simulate the treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer from second-line hormone therapy to death. The model was constructed with data from a clinical trial, literature sources, and interviews with breast cancer treatment experts. Canadian experts provided information on resource utilization patterns and local costs were attached to these resources. The model was used to calculate mean survival time, time without progression, and total direct medical costs for patients initiating treatment with letrozole 2.5 mg or megestrol acetate 160 mg.

RESULTS

The mean survival time and time without progression for letrozole 2.5 mg patients were 28.3 months and 19.0 months, respectively, compared to 25.7 months and 16.5 months for megestrol acetate 160 mg patients. Total treatment costs for both groups were similar with the letrozole 2.5 mg group costing dollar 20,068 per patient, dollar 1061 more than the megestrol acetate 160 mg group (dollar CAN, 1996). The cost-effectiveness ratio for letrozole 2.5 mg with respect to megestrol was dollar 5051 per year of life gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that this ratio was sensitive to variations in the probabilities governing disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced breast cancer patients initiating second-line hormone therapy with letrozole 2.5 mg have better clinical outcomes than patients receiving megestrol acetate 160 mg. Furthermore, this benefit comes at an acceptable cost to the Canadian health care system.

Cancer treatment in Sweden--costs of drugs, inpatient and outpatient care from 1985 to 1996 and cost effectiveness of new drugs

This study was carried out to investigate the direct costs for treatment of patients with cancer from 1985 to 1996 in Sweden, and to examine health economic effects of changes in treatment pattern. Material for the study was collected from official statistics and from published health economic evaluations of cancer treatment. Costs for inpatient care decreased during the period, while costs for outpatient care and drugs increased. In total, the direct health care costs for cancer treatment decreased from 1985 to 1996. New drugs registered on the market are often more expensive than the drugs they replace. From a health economic perspective it is not clear, however, that higher drug costs necessarily increase total costs. Further health economic research is needed because many treatment alternatives have not yet been evaluated, and furthermore, because a treatment option can be cost effective in one specific indication but not in another.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel and cisplatin versus cyclophosphamide and cisplatin as first-line therapy in advanced ovarian cancer. A European perspective

Paclitaxel is a new cytotoxic agent that has demonstrated significant activity in advanced ovarian cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the cost structure of advanced ovarian cancer and the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel-cisplatin (PC) combination therapy compared with a standard cyclophosphamide-cisplatin (CC) regimen at first-line therapy. The analysis was performed separately for six European countries: Germany, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands and the U.K. The study was conducted from the national health service payer's perspective. The total cost of treatment per patient (six cycles of chemotherapy) in the six European countries varied between a minimum of US$4,926 in the U.K. and US$12,578 in Germany for the CC regimen and between US$13,038 and US$24,487 for the PC regimen (April 1996). Since the new regimen improved life expectancy by 1.283 years compared with CC, the incremental cost-effectiveness of PC was calculated to be between US$6,403 per 5-year saved in the U.K. and US$11,420 per life-year saved in Italy. Overall, the cost-effectiveness of PC compares favourably with other oncological interventions. The findings of this study suggest that healthcare decision makers should consider paclitaxel, in combination with cisplatin, as a cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

The role of plant-derived drugs and herbal medicines in healthcare

Many of our present medicines are derived directly or indirectly from higher plants. While several classic plant drugs have lost much ground to synthetic competitors, others have gained a new investigational or therapeutical status in recent years. In addition, a number of novel plant-derived substances have entered into Western drug markets. Clinical plant-based research has made particularly rewarding progress in the important fields of anticancer (e.g. taxoids and camptothecins) and antimalarial (e.g. artemisinin compounds) therapies. In addition to purified plant-derived drugs, there is an enormous market for crude herbal medicines. Natural product research can often be guided by ethnopharmacological knowledge, and it can make substantial contributions to drug innovation by providing novel chemical structures and/or mechanisms of action. In the end, however, both plant-derived drugs and crude herbal medicines have to take the same pharmacoeconomic hurdle that has become important for new synthetic pharmaceuticals.

Cost-utility analysis of paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin for patients with advanced ovarian cancer

The standard treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) has been cyclophosphamide and cisplatin (CP). Recently, the results of a large randomized comparative trial demonstrated that the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin (TP) provided a progression-free survival benefit of 5 months. In this study, a cost-utility analysis was performed from a Canadian health care system perspective to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the TP combination. Twelve AOC patients who received treatment with TP were matched for age and disease stage on a 1-to-2 basis with a CP control. Total hospital resource consumption was then collected for all patients. Treatment preferences were estimated from a cohort of 20 patients and 40 healthy female volunteers using the time trade-off technique. The outcomes were then generated through a decision-analytic model. First-line treatment costs with TP were approximately fourfold greater on a per-cycle basis than the CP alternative (Can$1911 vs Can$459). When progression-free survival benefit and patient treatment preferences were incorporated into the analysis, the results of the decision model revealed an incremental cost between Can$12,000 and Can$24,000 per quality-adjusted progression-free year with the TP protocol. Even though the TP combination has a considerably higher drug acquisition cost, the results of the current analysis suggest that this new chemotherapy regimen does provide patients with substantial quality-adjusted progression-free survival benefit at a reasonable cost to the Canadian health care system.