Consolidation paclitaxel is more cost-effective than bevacizumab following upfront treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

Cost effectiveness of bevacizumab plus carboplatin paclitaxel versus carboplatin paclitaxel as front line for advanced ovarian cancer in Thailand

Bevacizumab (BEV) combined with standard chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) as the front-line treatment for newly diagnosed advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a promising treatment option. In Thailand, combined BEV and CP for patients with high-risk EOC is not yet covered. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of combined BEV and CP for subgroups with high-risk EOC. Cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness of CP alone versus combined BEV and CP according to the Gynecologic Oncology Group-218 (GOG-218) and the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 (ICON-7) regimens in patients with EOC. The decision tree model and Markov model were applied, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were analyzed. Data on direct medical costs were obtained from cost databases in Thailand. Details about all clinical parameters and direct non-medical costs were obtained from published studies. Utility information was collected by interviewing patient subgroups with high-risk EOC. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate parameter uncertainties. Based on the provider and societal perspectives, the ICERs of CP and the GOG-218 regimen were $31,266 and $31,966 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively. Meanwhile, the ICERs of CP and the ICON-7 regimen were $14,331 and $15,003 per QALY gained, respectively. The probabilities of cost-effectiveness for using BEV as the GOG-218 and ICON-7 regimens were 0% and 3%, respectively, based on the willingness-to-pay threshold in Thailand ($4,571 per QALY gained). The median progression-free survival of patients who received combined BEV and CP was the most important parameter leading to more benefit from using BEV. BEV as the GOG-218 or ICON-7 regimen may not be cost-effective for patient subgroups with high-risk EOC in Thailand. However, BEV as the ICON-7 regimen is more likely to be effective.

Health state utility and health-related quality of life measures in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Purpose

Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in ovarian cancer patients is critical to understand the impact of disease and treatment. Preference-based HRQoL measures, called health state utilities, are used specifically in health economic evaluations. Real-world patient-reported data on HRQoL and health state utilities over the long-term course of ovarian cancer are limited. This study aims to determine HRQoL and health state utilities in different health states of ovarian cancer.

Methods

This cross-sectional, multicenter study included patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer in six health states: at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, after cytoreductive surgery (CRS), after chemotherapy, in remission, and at first recurrence. HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, and the ovarian cancer-specific module OV28. Health state utilities were assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were performed for each health state.

Results

Two hundred thirty-two patients participated, resulting in 319 questionnaires. Median age was 66 years. The lowest HRQoL was observed during chemotherapy and shortly after CRS. Physical and role functioning were most affected and the highest symptom prevalence was observed in the fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, gastrointestinal, neuropathy, attitude, and sexuality domains. Patients in remission had the best HRQoL. Mean utility values ranged from 0.709 (±0.253) at diagnosis to 0.804 (±0.185) after chemotherapy.

Conclusions

This study provides clinicians with a valuable resource to aid in patient counseling and clinical decision-making. The utilities, in particular, are crucial for researchers conducting economic analyses to inform policy decisions.

Current Treatments and New Possible Complementary Therapies for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is one of the deadliest gynaecological malignancies. The late diagnosis is frequent due to the absence of specific symptomatology and the molecular complexity of the disease, which includes a high angiogenesis potential. The first-line treatment is based on optimal debulking surgery following chemotherapy with platinum/gemcitabine and taxane compounds. During the last years, anti-angiogenic therapy and poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerases (PARP)-inhibitors were introduced in therapeutic schemes. Several studies have shown that these drugs increase the progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with ovarian cancer, but the identification of patients who have the greatest benefits is still under investigation. In the present review, we discuss about the molecular characteristics of the disease, the recent evidence of approved treatments and the new possible complementary approaches, focusing on drug repurposing, non-coding RNAs, and nanomedicine as a new method for drug delivery.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

First- and second-line bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: A Belgian cost-utility analysis

Background

Currently, in Belgium, bevacizumab is reimbursed for ovarian cancer patients, based on a contract between the Minister and the manufacturer including confidential agreements. This reimbursement will be re-evaluated in 2018.

Objective

To support the reimbursement reassessment by calculating the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab: (1) in addition to first-line chemotherapy; (2) in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer (platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant).

Methods

A health economic model has been developed for the Belgian situation according to the Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations. The lifetime Markov model was set up from the perspective of the health care payer (government and patient), including direct healthcare related costs. Results are expressed as the extra costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Calculations were based on results of four international trials. Both probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line bevacizumab are on average 158 000/QALY (GOG-0218 trial) and 443 000/QALY (ICON7 trial). The most favourable scenario is based on the stage IV subgroup of the GOG-0218 trial (€52 000/QALY). Since subgroup findings are often exploratory and require confirmatory studies, results of the economic evaluation based on this subgroup analysis should be considered with caution. For second-line bevacizumab, ICERs are on average €587 000/QALY (OCEANS trial) and €172 000/QALY (AURELIA trial). Sensitivity analysis shows that results are most sensitive to the price of bevacizumab.

Conclusion

From a health economic perspective, ICERs of bevacizumab are relatively high. The most favourable results are found for first-line treatment of stage IV ovarian cancer patients. Price reductions have a major impact on the estimated ICERs. It is recommended to take these findings into account when re-evaluating the reimbursement of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer.

Bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: A critical review of phase III studies

Bevacizumab (BV) is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor and it is the first molecular-targeted agent to be used for the treatment of ovarian cancer (OC). Randomized Phase III trials evaluated the combination of BV plus standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced OC and for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant recurrent OC. These trials reported a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival but not in overall survival. Furthermore, BV effectively improved the quality of life with regard to abdominal symptoms in recurrent OC patients. Bevacizumab is associated with adverse events such as hypertension, bleeding, thromboembolism, proteinuria, delayed wound healing, and gastrointestinal events. However, most of these events can be adequately managed. This review describes the latest evidence for BV treatment of OC and selection of patients for personalized treatment.

Adding bevacizumab to single agent chemotherapy for the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: A cost effectiveness analysis of the AURELIA trial

OBJECTIVE

AURELIA, a randomized phase III trial of adding bevacizumab (B) to single agent chemotherapy (CT) for the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer, demonstrated improved progression free survival (PFS) in the B+CT arm compared to CT alone. We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding B to CT in the treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab (B) to single agent chemotherapy (CT) based on the arms of the AURELIA trial. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and progression free survival (PFS) were modeled over fifteen months. Model inputs were extracted from published literature and public sources. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained and ICERs per progression free life year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of results.

RESULTS

The ICER associated with B+CT is $410,455 per QALY gained and $217,080 per PF-LYS. At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, adding B to single agent CT is not cost effective for this patient population. Even at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, B+CT is not cost effective. These findings are robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite gains in QALY and PFS, the addition of B to single agent CT for treatment of platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Benefits, risks, and costs associated with treatment should be taken into consideration when prescribing chemotherapy for this patient population.

Use of Intermediate Endpoints in the Economic Evaluation of New Treatments for Advanced Cancer and Methods Adopted When Suitable Overall Survival Data are Not Available

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the use of intermediate endpoints in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer and the methodological approaches adopted when overall survival (OS) data are unavailable or of limited use.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced cancer published between 2003 and 2013. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses expressed in cost per life-year gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year using an intermediate endpoint as an outcome measure were eligible. Characteristics of selected studies were extracted and comprised population, treatment of interest, comparator, line of treatment, study perspective, and time horizon. Use of intermediate endpoints and methods adopted when OS data were lacking were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 7219 studies were identified and 100 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Intermediate endpoints mostly used were progression-free survival and time to progression, accounting for 92 % of included studies. OS data were unavailable for analysis in nearly 25 % of economic evaluations. In the absence of OS data, studies most commonly assumed an equal risk of death for all treatment groups. Other methods included use of indirect comparison based on numerous assumptions, use of a proxy for OS, consultation with clinical experts, and use of published external information from different treatment settings.

CONCLUSION

Intermediate endpoints are widely used in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer in order to estimate OS. Currently, different methods are used in the absence of suitable OS data and the choice of an appropriate method depends on many factors including the data availability.

Cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the management of stage IIIC and IV epithelial ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of primary debulking surgery (PDS) when compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims (SEER-Medicare).

METHODS

Using a Markov model, the cost-effectiveness of PDS was compared to that of NACT. We modeled cost and survival inputs using data from women in the SEER-Medicare database with ovarian cancer treated by either PDS or NACT between 1992 and 2009. Direct and indirect costs were discounted by an annual rate of 3%. Utility weights were obtained from published data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PDS compared to NACT was calculated.

RESULTS

In our model, women with stage IIIC EOC had a higher mean adjusted treatment cost for PDS when compared to NACT ($31,945 vs $30,016) but yielded greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.79 vs 1.69). The ICER was $19,359/QALY gained. Women with stage IV EOC had a higher mean adjusted treatment cost following PDS when compared to NACT ($31,869 vs $27,338) but yielded greater QALYs (1.69 vs 1.66). The ICER was $130,083/QALY gained. A sensitivity analysis showed that for both PDS and NACT the ICER was sensitive to incremental changes in the utility weight.

CONCLUSION

PDS is significantly more cost-effective for women with stage IIIC when compared to NACT. In women with stage IV EOC, PDS is also more cost-effective though the QALYs gained are much more costly and exceed a $50,000 willingness to pay.

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.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine for advanced recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, and the fourth most common cause of cancer death. Of those people successfully treated with first-line chemotherapy, 55-75% will relapse within 2 years. At this time, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrent, advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan (Hycamtin(®), GlaxoSmithKline), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride (PLDH; Caelyx(®), Schering-Plough), paclitaxel (Taxol(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), trabectedin (Yondelis(®), PharmaMar) and gemcitabine (Gemzar(®), Eli Lilly and Company) for the treatment of advanced, recurrent ovarian cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluations Database) and trial registries were searched, and company submissions were reviewed. Databases were searched from inception to May 2013.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical and economic literature was carried out following standard methodological principles. Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials, evaluating topotecan, PLDH, paclitaxel, trabectedin and gemcitabine, and economic evaluations were included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out. A de novo economic model was developed.

RESULTS

For most outcomes measuring clinical response, two networks were constructed: one evaluating platinum-based regimens and one evaluating non-platinum-based regimens. In people with platinum-sensitive disease, NMA found statistically significant benefits for PLDH plus platinum, and paclitaxel plus platinum for overall survival (OS) compared with platinum monotherapy. PLDH plus platinum significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with paclitaxel plus platinum. Of the non-platinum-based treatments, PLDH monotherapy and trabectedin plus PLDH were found to significantly increase OS, but not PFS, compared with topotecan monotherapy. In people with platinum-resistant/-refractory (PRR) disease, NMA found no statistically significant differences for any treatment compared with alternative regimens in OS and PFS. Economic modelling indicated that, for people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving platinum-based therapy, the estimated probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER; incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] for paclitaxel plus platinum compared with platinum was £24,539. Gemcitabine plus carboplatin was extendedly dominated, and PLDH plus platinum was strictly dominated. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and receiving non-platinum-based therapy, the probabilistic ICERs associated with PLDH compared with paclitaxel, and trabectedin plus PLDH compared with PLDH, were estimated to be £25,931 and £81,353, respectively. Topotecan was strictly dominated. For people with PRR disease, the probabilistic ICER associated with topotecan compared with PLDH was estimated to be £324,188. Paclitaxel was strictly dominated.

LIMITATIONS

As platinum- and non-platinum-based treatments were evaluated separately, the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these regimens is uncertain in patients with platinum-sensitive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

For platinum-sensitive disease, it was not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of platinum-based therapies with non-platinum-based therapies. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with platinum-based therapies, paclitaxel plus platinum could be considered cost-effective compared with platinum at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY. For people with platinum-sensitive disease and treated with non-platinum-based therapies, it is unclear whether PLDH would be considered cost-effective compared with paclitaxel at a threshold of £30,000 per additional QALY; trabectedin plus PLDH is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. For patients with PRR disease, it is unlikely that topotecan would be considered cost-effective compared with PLDH. Randomised controlled trials comparing platinum with non-platinum-based treatments might help to verify the comparative effectiveness of these regimens.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003555.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy based on outcomes from the GOG-218 and ICON-7 trials.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model was used. The time horizon was until the death of 99% of the initial cohort of 1000 individuals. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. All costs were adjusted to 2013 USD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as incremental cost per QALY gained. The robustness of the result was checked with one-way sensitivity analyses and for relevant clinical situations (i.e. varying the drug of choice to treat cancer recurrence). Subgroup analysis was conducted to identify subgroup of population for whom the strategy could be cost-effective. The potential impact of biosimilar bevacizumab was considered, using a 30% price reduction.

RESULTS

For the GOG-218 study protocol, widely followed in US, the addition of bevacizumab results in an ICER of $2,420,691/QALY. For the ICON-7 study protocol, the ICER is $225,515/QALY. The results of the model were sensitive to the quality of life (QoL) and the median progression free survival (PFS). Biosimilar bevacizumab didn't reduce cost sufficiently to change conclusions. First-line augmentation is cost-effective, with biosimilar bevacizumab, for stage IV patients ($126,169/QALY), ECOG PS1 patients ($116,575/QALY) and for patients with suboptimal residual disease ($122,822/QALY) as per the ICON-7 protocol.

CONCLUSION

Addition of bevacizumab, by in large, is cost-ineffective. It can become cost-effective with the ICON-7 protocol, in patients at high risk of progression using biosimilar bevacizumab.

Can we maximize both value and quality in gynecologic cancer care? A work in progress

Value is defined as desirable health outcomes achieved per monetary unit spent. Comparative effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research are methods that have been developed to quantify effectiveness and value to inform management decisions. In this article we review the comparative and cost-effectiveness literature in the field of ovarian cancer treatment. Studies have shown that improved ovarian cancer survival is associated with complete primary surgical cytoreduction, with treatment at high volume facilities by subspecialist providers (gynecologic oncologists) and with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline-adherent care in both surgical staging and chemotherapy regimens. Intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy (compared with intravenous alone) has been associated with improved survival and cost-effectiveness. Bevacizumab for primary and maintenance therapy has been found to not be cost-effective (even in selective subsets) despite a small progression-free survival (PFS) advantage. For platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary cytoreduction and platinum-based combinations are associated with improved overall survival (OS); several platinum-based combinations have also been found cost-effective. For platinum-resistant recurrence, single agent therapy and supportive care are cost-effective compared with combination therapies. Although little prospective clinical research has been done around end-of-life care, one study reported that for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, palliative intervention would potentially reduce costs and increase quality adjusted life years compared with usual care (based on improvement in quality of life [QOL]). Overall, cost comparisons of individual chemotherapy regimens are highly dependent on market prices of novel therapeutic agents.

Current status of bevacizumab in advanced ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological cancer, mainly because of the delay in diagnosis. Recently, much effort has been put into investigating and introducing novel targeted agents into clinical practice, with the aim of improving prognosis and quality of life. Angiogenesis is a possible target. The aim of this review is to investigate the most common molecular pathways of angiogenesis, which have provided novel targets for tailored therapy in patients with ovarian cancer. These therapeutic strategies include monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. These drugs have as molecular targets vascular endothelial growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, platelet-derived growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, and angiopoietin. Bevacizumab was investigated in several Phase III studies, with interesting results. Today, there is strong evidence for introducing bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with advanced and recurrent ovarian cancer. Nevertheless, further investigations and large clinical trials are needed to understand the safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab, the optimal duration and timing of treatment, and activity in association with other chemotherapeutic and targeted agents. It also is necessary to identify biologic factors predictive of efficacy to choose the most appropriate antiangiogenic agent in the integrated treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Maintenance chemotherapy for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Epithelial ovarian cancer accounts for about 90% of all cases of ovarian cancer. Debulking surgery and six courses of platinum-based chemotherapy results in complete clinical remission (CCR) in up to 75% of cases. However, 75% of the responders will relapse within a median time of 18 to 28 months and only 20% to 40% of women will survive beyond five years. It has been suggested that maintenance chemotherapy could assist in prolonging remission. To date, there has not been a systematic review on the impact of maintenance chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and toxicity of maintenance chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer and to evaluate the impact on quality of life (QoL).

SEARCH METHODS

In the original review we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CBMdisc, CNKI and VIP (to May 2009). We collected information from ongoing trials, checked reference lists of published articles and consulted experts in the field. For this update, the searches were extended to October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maintenance chemotherapy with no further intervention, maintenance radiotherapy or other maintenance therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data. We analysed overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates as dichotomous variables. Toxicity and QoL data were extracted where present. All analyses were based on intention-to-treat (ITT) on the endpoint of survival. We also analysed data by subgroups of drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials (1644 women). When all chemotherapy regimens were combined, meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in three-, five- and 10-year OS or PFS. For five-year OS, the combined risk ratio (RR) was 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.10) and for the five-year PFS, the combined RR was 1.06 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.17). Results were very similar when trials of different regimens were analysed. Comparing chemotherapy with radiotherapy, only the RR for 10-year PFS in pathological complete remission (PCR) was in favour of whole abdominal radiotherapy 0.51 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.00), while three- and five-year OS rates have no significant difference between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to suggest that the use of platinum agents, doxorubicin or paclitaxel used as maintenance chemotherapy is more effective than observation alone. Further investigations regarding the effect of paclitaxel used as maintenance chemotherapy are required.

Maintenance chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: new life for an old idea

Although well established for the treatment of certain hematologic malignancies, maintenance therapy has only recently become a treatment paradigm for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Maintenance therapy, which is designed to prolong a clinically favorable state after completion of a predefined number of induction chemotherapy cycles, has two principal paradigms. Continuation maintenance therapy entails the ongoing administration of a component of the initial chemotherapy regimen, generally the nonplatinum cytotoxic drug or a molecular targeted agent. With switch maintenance (also known as sequential therapy), a new and potentially non-cross-resistant agent is introduced immediately on completion of first-line chemotherapy. Potential rationales for maintenance therapy include increased exposure to effective therapies, decreasing chemotherapy resistance, optimizing efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents, antiangiogenic effects, and altering antitumor immunity. To date, switch maintenance therapy strategies with pemetrexed and erlotinib have demonstrated improved overall survival, resulting in US Food and Drug Administration approval for this indication. Recently, continuation maintenance with pemetrexed was found to prolong overall survival as well. Factors predicting benefit from maintenance chemotherapy include the degree of response to first-line therapy, performance status, the likelihood of receiving further therapy at the time of progression, and tumor histology and molecular characteristics. Several aspects of maintenance therapy have raised considerable debate in the thoracic oncology community, including clinical trial end points, the prevalence of second-line chemotherapy administration, the role of treatment-free intervals, quality of life, economic considerations, and whether progression-free survival is a worthy therapeutic goal in this disease setting.

Bevacizumab and ovarian cancer

Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that targets vascular endothelial growth factor-A, and is indicated in the treatment of various tumors (colon, lung, renal, and glioblastoma). It has been recently approved for the treatment of ovarian cancer in various countries. This review summarizes the activity and toxicity of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer, both as single-agent drug and in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. As a single-agent drug, it has shown response rates of 16-21% in the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Two phase III randomized trials have been published evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy as front-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. In addition, trials evaluating the combination with chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer (platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant disease) have also been reported. All these trials showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival although no improvement in overall survival has been reported. The main adverse event is hypertension. Other serious, but uncommon adverse events include gastrointestinal perforation as well as renal and central nervous system toxicity.

Comparison of methods to estimate health state utilities for ovarian cancer using quality of life data: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses are increasingly needed to inform decisions about care. Algorithms have been developed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life instrument to estimate utility weights for cost analyses. This study was designed to compare these algorithms in the setting of ovarian cancer.

METHODS

GOG-0152 was a 550-patient randomized phase III trial of interval cytoreduction, and GOG-0172 was a 415-patient randomized phase III trial comparing intravenous versus intraperitoneal therapy among women with advanced ovarian cancer. QOL data were collected via the FACT at four time points in each study. Two published mapping algorithms (Cheung and Dobrez) and a linear transformation method were applied to these data. The agreement between measures was assessed by the concordance correlation coefficient (r(CCC)), and paired t-tests were used to compare means.

RESULTS

While agreement between the estimation algorithms was good (ranged from 0.72 to 0.81), there were statistically significant (p<0.001) and clinically meaningful differences between the scores: mean scores were higher with Dobrez than with Cheung or the linear transformation method. Scores were also statistically significantly different (p<0.001) between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of prospectively collected utility data, the use of mapping algorithms is feasible, however, the optimal algorithm is not clear. There were significant differences between studies, which highlight the need for validation of these algorithms in specific settings. If cost analyses incorporate mapping algorithms to obtain utility estimates, investigators should take the variability into account.

Bevacizumab and ovarian cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), one of the major pathways involved in tumor angiogenesis, is often overexpressed in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), and therefore an attractive target for therapy. This review aims to evaluate the rationale for targeting angiogenic pathways by the usage of the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab in EOC.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bevacizumab monotherapy has been shown to be effective in the treatment of EOC with response rate of 16-21% in phase II trials. In phase III trials, patients with advanced EOC who received combination chemotherapy (paclitaxel + carboplatin) plus bevacizumab with maintenance bevacizumab had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who received chemotherapy alone, but did not prolong overall survival. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events of bevacizumab monotherapy include hypertension and proteinuria, while heavily pretreated patients were at increased risk of bowel perforation. The addition of bevacizumab to the standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced EOC may not be cost-effective.

SUMMARY

Bevacizumab has significant activity and is the most promising drug in EOC. However, understanding of its unique adverse events and identification of predictive biomarkers of bevacizumab response are necessary in order to select patients most likely to benefit from this therapy.