Cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the management of breast cancer patients with bone metastases

Management of bone metastasis with zoledronic acid: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

While considered the mainstay of treatment for specific bone metastases, ZA is used predominantly to treat osteolytic lesions. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare ZA to other treatment options in its ability to improve specific clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases secondary to any primary tumor.

Methods

PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to May 5th, 2022. Keywords used were solid tumor, lung neoplasm, kidney neoplasm, breast neoplasm, prostate neoplasm, ZA and bone metastasis. Every randomized controlled trial and non-randomized quasi-experimental study of systemic ZA administration for patients with bone metastases and any comparator were included. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was done on the primary outcomes including number of SREs, time to developing a first on-study SRE, overall survival, and disease progression-free survival. Secondary outcome was pain at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment.

Results

Our search yielded 3861 titles with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. For the number of SRE, ZA in combination with chemotherapy or hormone therapy was statistically superior to placebo (OR 0.079; 95 % CrI: 0.022-0.27). For the time to the first on study SRE, the relative effectiveness of ZA 4 mg was statistically superior to placebo (HR 0.58; 95 % CrI:0.48-0.77). At 3 and 6 months, ZA 4 mg was significantly superior to placebo for reducing pain with a SMD of -0.85 (95 % CrI:-1.6, -0.0025) and -2.6 (95 % CrI:-4.7, -0.52) respectively.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows the benefits of ZA in decreasing the incidence of SREs, increasing the time to the first on-study SRE, and reducing the pain level at 3 and 6 months.

Prospective analysis of the association between skeletal-related events and quality of life in patients with advanced lung cancer (CSP-HOR13)

A prospective study has previously reported on the incidence of bone metastasis (BM) and skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced lung cancer. The aim of the present study was to prospectively investigate how the quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced lung cancer was affected by SREs. Patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or small cell lung cancer (SCLC) at any stage were followed up every four weeks to determine if they had developed SREs. QOL questionnaires were conducted at enrollment, at 3- and 12-months later and at 1 month after the onset of SREs, using QOL scores including the EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and activities of daily living (ADL) scores obtained by the Barthel Index. A total of 274 patients were enrolled in the study. At enrollment the EQ-5D and Barthel Index scores were lower in patients with SREs compared with patients without SREs. A chronological analysis revealed no statistically significant changes in either QOL or ADL in any of the patients. For 14 patients in whom QOL data was collected following the onset of SREs, the evaluation undertaken on the four subscales of the FACT-G revealed a significant decline in emotional functioning following the onset of SREs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for the Management of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Metastatic cancers occur when cancer cells break away from the primary tumour. One of the most common sites of metastasis is the bone, with several therapeutic options currently available for managing bone metastases. In a resource-constrained environment, policy makers and practitioners need to know which options are cost effective.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to review and appraise published economic evaluations on treatments for the management of bone metastases.

METHODS

We searched eight bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CSDR, DARE, HTA, EED and CPCI) for relevant economic evaluations published from each database's inception date until March 2017. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-four relevant economic analyses were identified. Seventeen of these studies focused on bone metastases resulting from a particular type of cancer, i.e. prostate (n = 8), breast (n = 7), lung (n = 1) or renal (n = 1), while seven report results for various primary tumours. Across types of cancer, evidence suggests that bisphosphonates result in lower morbidity and improved quality of life, for an additional cost, which is typically below conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds. While denosumab leads to health gains compared with zoledronic acid, it also results in substantial additional costs and is unlikely to represent value for money. The limited literature on the radiopharmaceutical strontium-89 (Sr89) and external beam radiotherapy (EBR) suggest that these treatments are cost effective compared with no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The reviewed evidence suggests that bisphosphonate treatments are cost-effective options for bone metastases, while denosumab is unlikely to represent value for money. Evidence on EBR and Sr89 is limited and less conclusive.

Metastatic Bone Disease in the Era of Bone-Targeted Therapy: Clinical Impact

Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of tumors by surgery, chemotherapy, biotherapy, radiotherapy and other modalities have increased the survival of cancer patients over the last 20 years. As a consequence, bone now represents the third most common site of metastatic involvement after the lung and liver. Approximately 20–25% of patients with neoplastic disease develop clinically evident bone metastases (BMs) during the natural course of their illness, with a further 50% of such lesions being identified during autopsy. BMs are the major cause of morbidity in cancer patients because of their epidemiological and clinical impact. Pain is the most frequent symptom in about 75% of patients but other serious complications can also occur, such as pathological fractures, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia and bone marrow suppression. These complications worsen the patient's general condition and reduce patients’ mobility, facilitating the development of lung infections, skin ulcers, deep vein thrombosis, etc., and ultimately reducing prognosis and quality of life. The frequency of serious complications depends on the site and type of lesions and the treatment administered. Over the last 10 years, the introduction of bisphosphonates for the treatment of patients with BMs has led to a marked decrease in the frequency of complications, thus improving quality of life and clinical outcome. Furthermore, progress in understanding the pathophysiology of bone metastases has resulted in the development of new bone-targeted molecules such as denosumab. We therefore felt it would be useful to report on the epidemiological, clinical and economic impact of bone disease in a cancer setting.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events in the Czech Republic

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the subcutaneous RANKL inhibitor, denosumab, vs the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumors (OST) in the Czech Republic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the effects of denosumab and zoledronic acid on costs (including drug costs and administration, patient management, SREs, and adverse events), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a national payer perspective. Different discount rates, time horizons, SRE rates, distributions, and nature (asymptomatic vs all SREs), and the inclusion of treatment discontinuation were considered in scenario analyses. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs, improved QALYs, and higher total costs over a lifetime. The incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab vs zoledronic acid was 382,673 CZK for prostate cancer, 408,450 CZK for breast cancer, and 608,133 CZK for OST. Incremental costs per SRE avoided for the same tumor type were 54,007 CZK, 51,765 CZK, and 94,426 CZK, respectively. In scenario analyses, the results remained similar to baseline, when different discount rates and time horizons were considered. At a non-official willingness-to-pay threshold of 1.2 million CZK, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective vs zoledronic acid were 0.64, 0.67, and 0.49 for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

The SRE rates used were obtained from clinical trials; studies suggest rates may be higher in clinical practice. Additional evidence on real-world SRE rates could further improve the accuracy of the modeling.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab provides a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST in the Czech Republic.

Cost-Effectiveness of Zoledronic Acid to Prevent and Treat Postmenopausal Osteoporosis in Comparison with Routine Medical Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Fractures caused by osteoporosis are prevalent among elderly females, which reduce quality of life significantly. This study aimed at comparing cost-effectiveness of Zoledronic acid in preventing and treating post-menopause osteoporosis as compared with routine medical treatment.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness study was carried out retrospectively from the Ministry of Health and insurance organizations perspective. Costs were evaluated based on the cost estimation of a sample of patients. Outcomes were obtained from a systematic review. The Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (CER) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for outcome of femoral neck Bone Mineral Density (BMD), hip trochanter BMD, total hip BMD and lumbar spine BMD and cost-benefit of consuming Zoledronic Acid were calculated for fracture outcome obtained from reviewing hospital records.

RESULTS

The results and the ICER calculated for study outcomes indicated that one percent increase of BMD on femoral neck BMD requires further cost of $386. One percent increase of BMD on hip trochanter BMD requires further cost of $264. One percent increase of BMD on total hip BMD requires further cost of $388, one percent increase of BMD on lumbar spine BMD requires further cost of $347. The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) calculated for vertebral and hip fracture, non-vertebral fracture, any clinical fracture, and morphometric fracture for a 36-month period were about 0.82, 0.57, and 1.06, respectively. Vertebral and hip fractures, and non-vertebral fractures or any clinical fracture for a 12-month period were calculated as 1.14 and 0.64, respectively. In other words, Zoledronic acid consumption approach is a cheaper and better approach based on an economic assessment, and it can be considered as a dominant approach.

CONCLUSION

According to the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in women, despite the costs, it is recommended that insurance coverage for the drug should be considered in the period after menopause and the benefits of this drug. This can reduce the costs imposed on the patients and also it can reduce the economic burden on the community, particularly as a result of the fracture.

Cost-utility analyses of drug therapies in breast cancer: a systematic review

The economic evaluation (EE) of health care products has become a necessity. Their quality must be high in order to trust the results and make informed decisions. While cost-utility analyses (CUAs) should be preferred to cost-effectiveness analyses in the oncology area, the quality of breast cancer (BC)-related CUA has been given little attention so far. Thus, firstly, a systematic review of published CUA related to drug therapies for BC, gene expression profiling, and HER2 status testing was performed. Secondly, the quality of selected CUA was assessed and the factors associated with a high-quality CUA identified. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE/EMBASE, and Cochrane to identify published CUA between 2000 and 2014. After screening and data extraction, the quality of each selected CUA was assessed by two independent reviewers, using the checklist proposed by Drummond et al. The analysis of factors associated with a high-quality CUA (defined as a Drummond score ≥7) was performed using a two-step approach. Our systematic review was based on 140 CUAs and showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, including differences in the perspective adopted, the time horizon, measurement of cost and effectiveness, and more specially health-state utility values (HSUVs). The median Drummond score was 7 [range 3-10]. Only one in two of the CUA (n = 74) had a Drummond score ≥7, synonymous of "high quality." The statistically significant predictors of a high-quality CUA were article with "gene expression profiling" topic (p = 0.001), consulting or pharmaceutical company as main location of first author (p = 0.004), and articles with both incremental cost-utility ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes of EE (p = 0.02). Our systematic review identified only 140 CUAs published over the past 15 years with one in two of high quality. It showed a wide variety of methodological approaches, especially focused on HSUVs. A critical appraisal of utility values is necessary to better understand one of the main difficulties encountered by authors and propose areas for improvement to increase the quality of CUA. Since the last 5 years, there is a tendency toward an improvement in the quality of these studies, probably coupled with economic context, a better and widely spreading of recommendations and thus appropriation by medical practitioners. That being said, there is an urgent need for mandatory use of European and international recommendations to ensure quality of such approaches and to allow easy comparison.

Health resource utilization associated with skeletal-related events: results from a retrospective European study

BACKGROUND

Bone complications, also known as skeletal-related events (SREs), are common in patients with bone metastases secondary to advanced cancers.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a detailed estimate of the health resource utilization (HRU) burden associated with SREs across eight European countries.

METHODS

Eligible patients from centers in Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland with bone metastases or lesions secondary to breast cancer, prostate, or lung cancer or multiple myeloma who had experienced at least one SRE (defined as radiation to bone, long-bone pathologic fracture, other bone pathologic fracture, surgery to bone or spinal cord compression) were entered into this study. HRU data were extracted retrospectively from the patients' charts from 3.5 months before the index SRE until 3 months after the index SRE (defined as an SRE preceded by an SRE-free period of at least 6.5 months).

RESULTS

Overall, the mean number of inpatient stays per SRE increased from baseline by approximately 0.5-1.5 stays, with increases in the total duration of inpatient stays of approximately 6-37 days per event. All SREs were associated with substantial increases from baseline in the frequency of procedures and the number of outpatient and day-care visits.

CONCLUSIONS

SREs are associated with substantial HRU owing to considerable increases in the number and duration of inpatient stays, and in the number of procedures, outpatient visits, and day-care visits. These data collectively provide a valuable summary of the real-world SRE burden on European healthcare systems.

Cost of skeletal complications from bone metastases in six European countries

Objective Patients with bone metastases or lesions secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma often experience bone complications (skeletal-related events [SREs]-radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression); however, recent data that can be used to assess the value of treatments to prevent SREs across European countries are limited. This study aimed to provide estimates of health resource utilization (HRU) and cost associated with all SRE types in Europe. HRU data were reported previously; cost data are reported herein. Methods Eligible patients from 49 centers across Austria (n = 57), the Czech Republic (n = 59), Finland (n = 60), Greece (n = 59), Portugal (n = 59), and Sweden (n = 62) had bone metastases or lesions secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, and ≥1 index SRE (a SRE preceded by a SRE-free period of ≥ 6.5 months). SRE-related costs were estimated from a payer perspective using health resource utilization data from patient charts (before and after the index SRE diagnosis). Country-specific unit costs were from 2010 and local currencies were converted to 2010 euros. Results The mean costs across countries were €7043, €5242, €11,101, and €11,509 per radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression event, respectively. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean cost ratios were similar in most countries, with the exception of radiation to bone. Limitations The overall burden of SREs may have been under-estimated owing to home visits and evaluations outside the hospital setting not being reported here. Conclusions All SREs were associated with substantial costs. Variation in SRE-associated costs between countries was most likely driven by differences in treatment practices and unit costs.

Clinical, economic and humanistic burdens of skeletal-related events associated with bone metastases

Despite effective skeletal-related event (SRE)-limiting therapies such as zoledronic acid and denosumab, SREs continue to place a meaningful burden on patients, providers and payers. However, studies of SRE-related effects on clinical (i.e., survival), economic (i.e., cost per event) and humanistic (i.e., quality of life) outcomes often report results in a composite manner and frequently do not differentiate the effects by SRE-type (i.e., bone radiation, bone surgery, hypercalcemia, pathological fracture and spinal cord compression). Nevertheless, understanding the differential burdens of individual SRE types, which vary in severity and duration of effect, is an important consideration - particularly in pharmacoeconomic evaluations of SRE-limiting therapies. In this review of the clinical, economic and humanistic SRE burden, it was found that SRE types can be differentiated by these outcomes, although economic outcomes are far more frequently reported than clinical or humanistic.

Reducing the burden of bone metastases: current concepts and treatment options

BACKGROUND

Bone metastases occur frequently in patients with solid tumours such as those of the prostate, breast and lung, and are associated with an increased risk of skeletal-related events (SREs). This article reviews the personal, social and economic burdens of bone metastases and SREs, and approaches to treatment.

METHODS

PubMed searches were conducted using a broad range of search terms. Articles identified were refined by author review of abstracts. Additional material was identified by searching recent relevant congress abstracts.

RESULTS

Bone metastases often decrease quality of life, but quantitative data on the extent of this effect are limited. Data from the USA demonstrate a significant financial burden associated with bone metastases; similar trends are now being uncovered in Europe as the number of assessments of health economics and healthcare resource utilisation in the region increases. The bisphosphonate zoledronic acid reduces the incidence of SREs compared with placebo. Recent phase 3 studies have shown that therapy with the RANK ligand inhibitor denosumab is superior to zoledronic acid for preventing or delaying SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours. Denosumab also has a comparable safety profile to bisphosphonates, with reduced risk of renal toxicity and acute phase reactions. Data from Europe suggest that denosumab is cost-effective for the prevention of SREs compared with zoledronic acid. Additionally, several new experimental bone-targeted agents show promise.

CONCLUSION

Recent progress may help to reshape evidence-based guidelines to improve patient care and reduce the economic burden of bone metastases.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Results from a phase III clinical trial showed that denosumab significantly reduced the risk of first on-study and subsequent skeletal-related events (SREs) compared with zoledronic acid. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs. zoledronic acid in the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed with 4-week model cycles and a 1-year time horizon. The health states were defined by SRE status (no SRE, first on-study SRE, subsequent SRE, no SRE but history of SRE) and SRE type (pathologic fracture, radiation to the bone, surgery to the bone, spinal cord compression). Costs (in 2011 US dollars) included drug, SRE treatment, and adverse event (AE) costs and were assessed from a third-party payer perspective. The primary outcome was incremental total cost per SRE avoided; the secondary outcome was incremental total cost per pathologic fracture avoided. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

During the 1-year treatment period, denosumab incurred $7522 higher costs ($30,033 for denosumab and $23,511 for zoledronic acid), 0.06 fewer SREs, and 0.02 fewer pathologic fractures per patient, which led to an incremental total cost per SRE and pathologic fracture avoided of $114,628 and $290,136, respectively, compared with zoledronic acid. Results were robust to 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Although denosumab demonstrated superiority in preventing SREs in the phase III trial, it may not be cost-effective compared with zoledronic acid because of its high cost.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

OBJECTIVE

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

METHODS

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

LIMITATIONS

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

CONCLUSION

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.

Retrospective database analysis of the effect of zoledronic acid on skeletal-related events and mortality in women with breast cancer and bone metastasis in a managed care plan

BACKGROUND

Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced breast cancer, and place patients at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs) including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and the need for radiotherapy and/or surgery to bone. These SREs are associated with reduced survival and quality-of-life. The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL) and Aredia (pamidronate disodium, PAM) reduce SRE risk in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. This database analysis compared SRE and mortality rates in a real-life setting in women with breast cancer receiving ZOL and PAM, and assessed long-term ZOL benefit.

METHODS

A retrospective, claims-based analysis was conducted using commercial and Medicare Advantage data from >45 US managed-care plans. Eligible adult patients had diagnoses for breast cancer and bone metastasis between 01/01/01 and 12/31/06, continuous enrollment in the health plan, and no evidence of bone metastasis or intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP) use for 6 months before their first ZOL or PAM infusion. Patients were followed until disenrollment (including mortality) or end of the analysis period (12/31/07). Persistency was defined as absence of a >45-day gap between IV-BP treatments.

RESULTS

Of 8757 patients (mean age, 58.1 [SD 12.4] years), approximately 30% were treated with ZOL, 15% with PAM, and 55% with no IV-BP. Patients treated with ZOL had a moderately lower incidence of SREs (mean, 36.2 vs 40.0 SREs/100 person-years; p = 0.0707) and significantly lower mortality (mean, 6.5 vs 11.2 deaths/100 person-years; p < 0.001) compared with PAM-treated patients. Longer persistency with ZOL was associated with lower risk of fracture and all SREs (trend-test p = 0.0076 and p = 0.0200, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as imbalances in patient populations and the potential for bias in treatment selection.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that fewer than half of breast cancer patients with bone metastases receive IV-BPs. Longer persistence with ZOL was associated with lower SRE risk, and ZOL-treated patients had longer survival and a non-significant trend toward fewer SREs compared with PAM.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases secondary to advanced renal cell carcinoma: application to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The use of zoledronic acid (ZOL) has recently been shown to significantly reduce the risk of new skeletal-related events (SREs) in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients with bone metastases. The present exploratory study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ZOL in this population, adopting a French, German, and United Kingdom (UK) government payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cost-effectiveness model was based on a post hoc retrospective analysis of a subset of patients with RCC who were included in a larger randomized clinical trial of patients with bone metastases secondary to a variety of cancers. In the trial, patients were randomized to receive ZOL (n = 27) or placebo (n = 19) with concomitant antineoplastic therapy every 3 weeks for 9 months (core study) plus 12 months during a study extension. Since the trial did not collect costs or data on the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the patients, these outcomes had to be assumed via modeling exercises. The costs of SREs were estimated using hospital DRG tariffs. These estimates were supplemented with literature-based costs where possible. Drug, administration, and supply costs were obtained from published and internet sources. Consistent with similar economic analyses, patients were assumed to experience quality of life decrements lasting 1 month for each SRE. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via multivariate sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Patients receiving ZOL experienced 1.07 fewer SREs than patients on placebo. Patients on ZOL experienced a gain in discounted QALYs of approximately 0.1563 in France and Germany and 0.1575 in the UK. Discounted SRE-related costs were substantially lower among ZOL than placebo patients (-€ 4,196 in France, - € 3,880 in Germany, and -€ 3,355 in the UK). After taking into consideration the drug therapy costs, ZOL saved € 1,358, € 1,223, and € 719 in France, Germany, and the UK, respectively. In the multivariate sensitivity analyses, therapy with ZOL saved costs in 67-77% of simulations, depending on the country. The cost per QALY gained for ZOL versus placebo was below € 30,000 per QALY gained threshold in approximately 93-94% of multivariate sensitivity analyses simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis suggests that ZOL saves costs and increases QALYs compared to placebo in French, German, and UK RCC patients with bone metastases. Additional prospective research may be needed to confirm these results in a larger sample of patients.

Bone health management in patients with breast cancer: current standards and emerging strategies

In women who develop bone metastases from breast cancer (BC), interactions between tumor cells and osteoclasts within the bone lead to localized bone destruction and increase the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and have been used extensively for treating post-menopausal osteoporosis and reducing the risk of SREs in patients with bone metastases. A number of clinical trials in women with early stage BC have demonstrated that adding bisphosphonates to adjuvant endocrine therapy can prevent bone loss and may prevent disease recurrence and improve disease-free survival. In women with bone metastases from BC, bisphosphonates have demonstrated efficacy for reducing skeletal morbidity and pain and improving quality of life. Recent economic analyses have demonstrated that bisphosphonate therapy is a cost-effective use of healthcare resources. This review summarizes the available data for bisphosphonate benefits in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings in the context of evolving clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer in France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the United kingdom

BACKGROUND

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) significantly reduces the risk of new skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have bone metastases.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of ZOL in the management of skeletal metastases in this population across 5 European countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, and the Netherlands) from the perspective of national health care.

METHODS

This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a subset of patients with NSCLC who were enrolled in a Phase III trial of patients with bone metastases secondary to a variety of solid tumors. In this trial, patients were randomized to receive ZOL or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 21 months. Survival, SRE incidence, and number of infusions administered were derived from the clinical trial. Costs of SREs were estimated using hospital Diagnosis Related Group tariffs and published data. Drug, drug administration, and supply costs were obtained from published and internet sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated based on the published utilities and modeled survival and frequency of SREs. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with patients receiving placebo (n = 120), patients receiving ZOL (n = 124) experienced an estimated 0.79 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.02 QALYs. ZOL use in patients with NSCLC and bone metastases was associated with a reduction in SRE costs (ranging from €1547 to €1893 [2007-2008 €], depending on the country). After adding drug and drug administration costs, ZOL use resulted in a net savings of €288 per patient in Germany, €209 in the United Kingdom, and €113 in Portugal. In France and the Netherlands, costs increased (€17 and €178, respectively), but the costs per QALY gained were low (€786 and €8278, respectively). In univariate sensitivity analyses, the cost per QALY for ZOL versus placebo was ≤€50,000 for all scenarios tested. The results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding survival, number of ZOL infusions, and the costs of SREs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that ZOL cost ≤€50,000 per QALY in 65% to 83% of model simulations (depending on country). However, some degree of uncertainty remained as the 95th percentile of cost per QALY was high.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis is subject to the usual limitations of cost-effectiveness models, which combine assumptions and data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, based on the assumptions used herein, the present model suggests that ZOL increases QALYs and is cost saving and/or cost effective compared with placebo in patients with NSCLC in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and the Netherlands.

A primer of bone metastases management in breast cancer patients

Bone is the most common site for distant spread of breast cancer. Following a diagnosis of metastatic bone disease, patients can suffer from significant morbidity because of pain and skeletal related events (SRES). Bisphosphonates are potent inhibitors of osteoclastic function and the mainstay of bone-directed therapy for bone metastases. The aims of bisphosphonates are to prevent and delay SRES, to reduce bone pain, and to improve quality of life. Bisphosphonate therapy appears to have revolutionized treatment of bone metastases, but bisphosphonate use has several limitations. Those limitations include the high cost of the agents and the need for return trips to the clinic for intravenous treatment. Moreover, many uncertainties surround bisphosphonate use-for example, the timing of bisphosphonate initiation, the choice of bisphosphonate to use, the optimal duration of treatment, and the appropriate means to identify patients who will and will not benefit. In addition, potentially serious adverse effects have been associated with bisphosphonate use-for example, renal toxicity, gastrointestinal side effects, and osteonecrosis of the jaw. The present review is intended as a primer for oncology specialists who treat patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer. It focuses on bisphosphonate treatment guidelines, the evidence for those guidelines, and a discussion of new therapeutic agents. It also discusses the use of biochemical markers of bone metabolism, which show promise for predicting the risk of a patient's developing a SRE and of benefiting from bisphosphonate treatment.

Quality of life implications of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw

PURPOSE

Potentially debilitating, osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is an emerging complication of bisphosphonates. However, its effect on quality of life (QoL) is unknown. We determined the ONJ-related QoL decline in a cancer patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-four cancer patients with bisphosphonate-associated ONJ completed a telephone survey (October 2007 through May 2008). The Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP) retrospectively assessed participant oral health-related QoL before and after ONJ. Standardized ONJ descriptions were developed in a multidisciplinary, iterative process and were evaluated with three frequently used preference-based QoL measurement methods on a 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health) scale: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Time Trade-Off (TTO), and EQ-5D.

RESULTS

ONJ significantly (p < .001) increased OHIP scores (worse QoL) for additive (3.56-16.53) and weighted (7.0-17.5) methods. Seven individual OHIP items significantly increased (Bonferroni correction p < .0035): pain, eating discomfort, self-consciousness, unsatisfactory diet, interrupted meals, irritability, and decreased life satisfaction. Mean preference-based QoL values significantly decreased (p < .001) with worsening ONJ stage (VAS, TTO, and EQ-5D): no ONJ (0.76, 0.86, 0.82), ONJ stage 1 (0.69, 0.82, 0.78), ONJ stage 2 (0.51, 0.67, 0.55), and ONJ stage 3 (0.37, 0.61, 0.32). As ONJ worsened, EQ-5D domain scores significantly increased (p < .001). Pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression contributed most to declining QoL.

CONCLUSIONS

ONJ significantly affects QoL, a detriment that increases with worsening ONJ. QoL impairments for ONJ stages 2 and 3 are similar to other treatment side effects that influence decision-making. Bisphosphonate-associated ONJ QoL is an important consideration for patients, clinicians, and policy makers.

Cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France, Germany, Portugal, and the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

METHODS

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n = 214) or placebo (n = 208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (-€2396 [€1284] in France, -€2606 [€841] in Germany, -€3326 [€309] in Portugal and -€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Zoledronic acid: a review of its use in breast cancer

Zoledronic acid 4 mg administered as a 15-minute infusion every 3-4 weeks is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with breast cancer metastatic to bone. It is effective in reducing complications arising from metastatic bone disease in this patient population, with a clinical profile that compares favourably with that of pamidronate. Zoledronic acid administered on a less frequent schedule (every 3-6 months) has also shown potential in preventing cancer treatment-induced bone loss in pre- and postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy. Preliminary data suggest that zoledronic acid may have antitumour effects, which may reduce the risk of overall disease progression in patients with malignant disease. Thus, zoledronic acid has a well established role as first-line treatment in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer, and may prove useful as a preventive treatment for cancer treatment-induced bone loss or an adjuvant therapy in women with breast cancer.

Zoledronic acid : a review of its use in the management of bone metastases of malignancy

Zoledronic acid (Zometa), a third-generation amino-bisphosphonate, has been approved in the US, the EU and many other countries worldwide for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases of malignancy. In several well designed trials, zoledronic acid 4 mg administered as a 15-minute infusion every 3-4 weeks was effective in reducing the occurrence of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases secondary to multiple myeloma, breast cancer or prostate cancer. Zoledronic acid was as effective as pamidronic acid in reducing the occurrence of skeletal complications in patients with multiple myeloma or breast cancer. In patients with solid tumours other than breast or prostate cancer, zoledronic acid did not show significant clinical benefit over placebo in terms of the primary endpoint; however, some benefit of therapy in terms of secondary endpoints was observed with zoledronic acid relative to placebo. Its efficacy in a broad range of tumours and short infusion time (15 minutes) are an advantage over other available bisphosphonates. Modelled pharmacoeconomic analyses in patients with breast cancer suggested that zoledronic acid therapy is cost effective relative to no therapy with regard to the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; however, results were mixed when zoledronic acid was compared with other commonly used bisphosphonates. Zoledronic acid is generally well tolerated; the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw may be minimized by adhering to recommendations regarding dental therapy. Additional efficacy and economic data are required to definitively position zoledronic acid with respect to other bisphosphonates. Nevertheless, available clinical data indicate that zoledronic acid is an effective treatment option for the management of bone metastases of malignancy.

Risks and benefits of bisphosphonates

Bone is the most common site for metastasis in cancer and is of particular clinical importance in breast and prostate cancers due to the prevalence of these diseases. Bone metastases result in considerable morbidity and complex demands on health care resources, affecting quality of life and independence over years rather than months. The bisphosphonates have been shown to reduce skeletal morbidity in multiple myeloma as well as a wide range of solid tumours affecting bone by 30–50%. Quite appropriately, these agents are increasingly used alongside anticancer treatments to prevent skeletal complications and relieve bone pain.

The use of bisphosphonates in early cancer is also increasingly important to prevent the adverse effects of cancer treatments on bone health. These include ovarian suppression and the use of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer patients and androgen deprivation therapy in those with prostate cancer. Bisphosphonate strategies, similar to those used to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis, have suggested that bisphosphonates are a safe and effective treatment for the prevention of treatment-induced bone loss.

When compared to other cancer therapies, the frequency and severity of adverse events related to bisphosphonate therapy are generally mild and infrequent; thus, the benefits of treatment with any bisphosphonate almost always outweigh the risks. However, renal dysfunction may occasionally occur and over recent years, a new entity, bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), has been described. The incidence, clinical importance and prevention strategies to minimise the impact of this problem on patients requiring bisphosphonates is discussed.

Cost-effectiveness of Oral Clodronate Compared with Oral Ibandronate, Intravenous Zoledronate or Intravenous Pamidronate in Breast Cancer Patients

This study aimed to identify the effects of different bisphosphonates in reducing skeletal-related events, and to determine whether there are any differences in their cost-effectiveness, taking into account their efficacy, safety profile and administration routes. A systematic literature search of databases, such as PubMed and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, supplemented by the latest congress abstracts from meetings of the European Hematology Association and the American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted up to November 2006. Important references in reviews published by peer-reviewed journals were also taken into consideration. Our base-case cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany and the UK showed cost savings for oral clodronate therapy compared with other bisphosphonate therapies. In Germany, costs per patient of treatment with oral clodronate were €1092.38, €2360.40 and €2500.29 less than with oral ibandronate, intravenous pamidronate and intravenous zoledronate, respectively. The UK results were similar, the costs per patient of treatment with oral clodronate being €841.79, €2989.99 and €3669.19 less than with oral ibandronate, intravenous pamidronate and intravenous zoledronate, respectively.

Zoledronic acid inhibits osteosarcoma growth in an orthotopic model

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) has been shown to reduce osteolysis in bone metastasis. Its efficacy in osteosarcoma has not been convincingly proved in a clinically relevant model for the disease. In vitro, ZOL decreased osteosarcoma cell proliferation, mainly due to an increase in apoptosis in a dose-dependent fashion. There was a decrease in cell migration at >or=10 micromol/L concentrations, but invasion was inhibited at a much lower dose of 0.1 micromol/L. Reverse transcription-PCR showed that ZOL overall caused an increased expression of osteocalcin and decreased expression of alkaline phosphatase, osteopontin, osteonectin, and vascular endothelial growth factor, with no change in expression of osteoprotegerin. ZOL administration s.c. twice weekly at 0.12 mg/kg to SaOS-2 tumor-bearing mice resulted in primary tumor growth inhibition, reduction in lung metastases, and dramatic decrease in osteolysis. Furthermore, in the ZOL cohort, there was a clear reduction in the number of osteoclasts in bone exposed to tumor and a lower tumor vessel density. These data point to the adjuvant potential of ZOL in the management of osteosarcoma not only for its antiosteolytic properties but also for its ability to directly halt tumor cell growth and metastasis via its effects on viability, invasion, differentiation, and angiogenesis.

Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours: recommendations of an international expert panel

Bisphosphonates (BP) prevent, reduce, and delay cancer-related skeletal complications in patients, and have substantially decreased the prevalence of such events since their introduction. Today, a broad range of BP with differences in potency, efficacy, dosing, and administration as well as approved indications is available. In addition, results of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of BP in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) have been recently published. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence on the use of BP in solid tumours and provide clinical recommendations. An interdisciplinary expert panel of clinical oncologists and of specialists in metabolic bone diseases assessed the widespread evidence and information on the efficacy of BP in the metastatic and nonmetastatic setting, as well as ongoing research on the adjuvant use of BP. Based on available evidence, the panel recommends amino-bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer and zoledronic acid for patients with other solid tumours as primary disease. Dosing of BP should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. While i.v. administration is most often preferable, oral administration (clodronate, IBA) may be considered for breast cancer patients who cannot or do not need to attend regular hospital care. Early-stage cancer patients at risk of developing CTIBL should be considered for preventative BP treatment. The strongest evidence in this setting is now available for ZOL. Overall, BP are well-tolerated, and most common adverse events are influenza-like syndrome, arthralgia, and when used orally, gastrointestinal symptoms. The dose of BP may need to be adapted to renal function and initial creatinine clearance calculation is mandatory according to the panel for use of any BP. Subsequent monitoring is recommended for ZOL and PAM, as described by the regulatory authority guidelines. Patients scheduled to receive BP (mainly every 3-4 weeks i.v.) should have a dental examination and be advised on appropriate measures for reducing the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. BP are well established as supportive therapy to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from different cancers.

Management of bisphosphonate treatment in clinical practice

Bisphosphonates have become important tools for the treatment of bone lesions from various solid tumors or from multiple myeloma. Management of bone health in patients with malignant bone disease from breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, and multiple myeloma was discussed in clinical case workshops held during the ZENITH meeting (April 2007, Prague, Czech Republic). Physicians in attendance were generally in agreement that bisphosphonate therapy is recommended for treatment of bone metastases and that treatment should be sustained over the duration of disease progression. Consensus is still evolving regarding the optimal duration of therapy and the emerging role of bisphosphonates in the management of bone loss in the adjuvant setting. Bisphosphonates have proven efficacy in reducing and delaying skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases, and play a key role in preserving patient functional independence and quality of life. Furthermore, bisphosphonate therapy is a cost-effective strategy in the care of patients with bone metastases compared with the cost of treatment for fractures and other skeletal complications. Finally, communication with patients is critical to increase awareness of the benefits of bisphosphonate therapy. Increased patient involvement with treatment decisions will likely encourage patient compliance and thereby maximize clinical benefit from bisphosphonate therapy.

Breast cancer in elderly women. Optimizing the treatment

The elderly population is on the rise. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in western women and its incidence increases with age. Despite the epidemiological burden of this condition, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the management of older patients, as treatment planning is mainly based on personal preferences rather than hard data. Older women are often offered sub-optimal treatment when compared to their younger counterpart at any particular stage. This is due to various reasons, including the lack of scientific evidence from well-conducted clinical trials. Reluctance to prescribe systemic treatments may be explained by the complexity of cost-benefit evaluations in such patients. It is also an ethical dilemma to decide how aggressive one should be when it comes to treat cancer in the elderly in view of the higher rate of cognitive impairment and specific patients' expectations. This paper reviews the currently available evidence and attempts presenting and discussing chemoprevention of breast cancer, risk and benefit of hormone replacement therapy and the various treatment options for older women with breast cancer.

Management of painful bone metastases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines recent data on the pathophysiology and mechanisms of bone pain; it highlights the use of multiple and interdisciplinary treatments rather than sole use of traditional analgesics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bone pain has been shown to have a unique pathophysiology. Recent experimental (animal) models have revealed that, parallel to increased bone destruction, ipsilateral spinal cord segments that receive primary input from the cancerous femur exhibit several notable neurochemical changes. These mandate the use of opioid doses sufficient to inhibit the observed nociceptive behaviours; these doses are greater than those required to alleviate pain behaviours of comparable magnitude generated by inflammatory pain. Several substances have been tested in this animal model.

SUMMARY

According to new preclinical data, treatment of bone cancer pain requires multidisciplinary therapies such as radiotherapy applied to the painful area along with systemic treatment (hormone therapy or chemotherapy) and supportive care (analgesic therapy and bisphosphonates). In some selected cases use of radioisotopes and other noninvasive or minimally invasive techniques may be useful in the management of metastatic bone pain. The treatment should be individualized according to the patient's clinical condition, life expectancy, and quality of life.

Breast Cancer in the Elderly

Screening and adjuvant postoperative therapies have increased survival among women with breast cancer. These tools are seldom applied in elderly patients, although the usually reported incidence of breast cancer is close to 50% in women 65 years or older, reaching 47% after 70 years in the updated Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Elderly breast cancer patients, even if in good medical health, were frequently excluded from adjuvant clinical trials. Women age 70 years who are fit actually have a median life expectancy of 15.5 years, ie, half of them will live much longer and will remain exposed for enough time to the potentially preventable risks of a relapse and specific death. In the last few years, a new concern about this issue has developed. Treatment now faces two major end points, as in younger women: to improve disease-free survival in the early stages, and to palliate symptoms in advanced disease. However, in both settings, the absolute benefit of treatment is critical because protecting quality of life and all its related aspects (especially functional status and independence), is crucial in older persons who have more limited life expectancy. Furthermore, the new hormonal compounds (aromatase inhibitors) and chemotherapeutic drugs (capecitabine, liposomal doxorubicin), are potentially less toxic than and equally as effective as older more established therapies. These new treatments bring new challenges including higher cost, and defining their benefit in elderly breast cancer must include an analysis of the cost/benefit ratio. These issues emphasize the urgent need to develop and support clinical trials for this older population of breast cancer patients both in the adjuvant and metastatic settings, a move that will take us from a prejudiced, age-based medicine to an evidence-based medicine.

Pharmacoeconomics of available treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer

The resources devoted to managing metastatic prostate cancer are enormous, yet little attention has been given to directly measuring the economic consequences of treatment alternatives. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomics of available treatments for metastatic prostate cancer, including hormone-sensitive disease, androgen-independent prostate cancer and locally advanced/progressive disease. We identified 58 articles addressing economic issues related to metastatic prostate cancer. Treatment alternatives with considerably different costs are available in many areas of disease management, most notably, medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus surgical castration; combined androgen blockage (CAB) versus monotherapy for initial treatment of hormone-sensitive disease; as well as bisphosphonates and bone-targeted radioisotopes for palliation. The few available pharmacoeconomic studies indicate that the additional costs are not supported by clear and compelling evidence of differences in survival or quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes. Our review revealed that authors often use considerably different assumptions about efficacy and survival outcomes in their analyses, which may be due to the inconsistency of available clinical evidence. Although there have been many clinical trials comparing various therapies, we identified only three trials that included economic assessments. Thus, few sources of economic data are available and most pharmacoeconomic studies rely on information mined from indirect sources. We note that, while there has been considerable enthusiasm about the role of docetaxel regimens in the past 2 years, no study has yet examined the costs of these therapies. Survival remains poor for metastatic disease, thus QOL is the primary consideration for many therapies. However, QOL for treatment of metastatic disease is poorly measured and, in most analyses, the impact of therapy on QOL was inferred based on speculation by the authors. Given the large cost burdens of these treatments, it is essential that we more fully understand the true QOL gains potentially offered by more expensive therapies. The economic studies of advanced prostate cancer highlight several aspects of clinical care that are filled with considerable uncertainty and remain guided by forces other than optimal resource allocation. It is essential that we address the weaknesses in our understanding of the economic consequences of therapies for prostate cancer, and find ways to include economic information into the process of determining optimal therapy.

Optimal management of metastatic bone disease

OBJECTIVES

Skeletal-related events (SREs) from bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity and significantly decrease patients' quality of life. Strategies for the optimal management of SREs with bisphosphonates are explored.

METHODS

Existing and novel therapies were identified and published guidelines were reviewed through PubMed key word searches.

RESULTS

Nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates effectively reduce the risk of SREs in patients with bone metastases from a variety of solid tumors and bone lesions from multiple myeloma. Review of placebo-controlled trials in breast cancer patients with bone metastases indicated that zoledronic acid produced the greatest SRE risk reduction of all bisphosphonates evaluated. Zoledronic acid has demonstrated significant long-term benefits for prevention of SREs and palliative effects for bone pain. Zoledronic acid also improves quality of life. Analysis of recent trials indicates that early zoledronic acid intervention provides greater benefit in asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with malignant bone disease are at a continuous risk for SREs, and bisphosphonates reduce the incidence and delay the onset of SREs. Zoledronic acid has demonstrated the greatest SRE risk reduction of all bisphosphonates and significantly improves pain scores in patients with breast cancer. Zoledronic acid is the only bisphosphonate to show efficacy in prostate cancer, lung cancer, and other solid tumors.