Patient-level simulation models in cancer care: a systematic review

Background

Patient-level simulation (PLS) models overcome some major limitations of conventional cohort models and have broad applicability in healthcare, yet limited knowledge exists about their potential in cancer care.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to: (1) describe the application areas of PLS models in cancer care, (2) identify commonly used model structures, (3) evaluate the quality of reporting based on established guidelines, and (4) critically discuss the potential and limitations of PLS models in this context.

Methods

A systematic literature search was completed in Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE and EconLit. Reasons underlying the use of PLS models were identified with a conventional inductive content analysis and reporting quality was assessed with an 18-item checklist based on the ISPOR-SMDM guidelines.

Results

The number of publications increased over time and most studies used state-transition microsimulation (49.25%) or discrete event simulation (48.51%). Two main application areas could be discerned, namely disease progression modelling (DPM) (78.36%) and health and care systems operation (HCSO) (21.64%). In the DPM domain, the use of PLS models was mainly motivated by the need to represent patient heterogeneity and history. In the HCSO domain, PLS models were used to better understand and improve cancer care delivery. Average reporting quality was 65.2% and did not improve over time.

Conclusion

PLS models can be used to simulate the progression of cancer and to model cancer care delivery. In the DPM domain more direct comparisons with cohort models are required to establish the relative advantages of PLS models and in the HCSO domain the impact on clinical practice needs to be systematically assessed. Furthermore, adherence to the ISPOR-SMDM guidelines should be improved.

Adverse Event Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anticancer Drugs: A Systematic Review

Importance

Accurately quantifying adverse event (AE) costs is essential for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of anticancer drugs. Misestimates in AE costs may significantly affect cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Objective

To assess whether AE cost quantification in anticancer drug CEAs accurately reflects the true cost of AEs and to evaluate whether replacing AE costs with actual values affects cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Evidence Review

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Tufts CEA databases was conducted from October 24 to December 1, 2023, with an additional search from November 4 to 10, 2024, for English-language CEAs and claims-based studies examining AE costs for anticancer drugs published between January 2003 and December 2023. Claims-based AE costs were considered to represent actual values. AE costs were compared in absolute terms and as a proportion of total medical costs. Impact of replacing CEA AE cost estimates with actual values for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) was examined at thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). AE cost differences between CEA estimates and actual values and their impact on ICERs were the main outcomes.

Findings

The sample included 11 claims-based US studies with 34 022 patients and 102 US payer-perspective CEAs. AE cost estimates in CEAs were consistently lower than actual values, with a median difference of 9.73% (IQR, 5.15%-27.22%; P = .002) in proportion of total medical costs and of $17 201 (IQR, $13 365-$48 970; P = .03) in absolute costs. Adjusting AE costs led to an ICER change of $42 656 per QALY, altering cost-effectiveness conclusions in 8 of 17 cases (47.1%). Among the 102 CEAs, 41 (40.2%) did not report AE types; of the remaining 61 (59.8%), 48 (78.7%) focused on treatment-related AEs instead of all-cause AEs. Of all CEAs, 79 (77.5%) considered grade 3 or higher AEs, ignoring grades 1 and 2. Only 13 studies (12.7%) accounted for AE-related dose reductions or interruptions, 87 (85.3%) did not consider postprogression AE costs, and 77 (82.8%) assumed AEs occurred only in the first treatment cycle. Substantial variability was observed in both drug AE and unit AE costs across studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of AE costs in oncology CEAs, AE costs were frequently underestimated, potentially altering cost-effectiveness conclusions. Key problems included incomplete AE inclusion, inaccurate AE cost estimates, overlooked long-term AEs, and unaccounted dose modifications. Best practices and standardized guidelines should be established to improve AE cost quantification in oncology CEAs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Capivasertib as a Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Capivasertib, a first-in-class AKT inhibitor, was recently approved as a second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer. However, capivasertib is expensive, raising questions over its economic value. This study provides the first evidence on the cost effectiveness of adding capivasertib to endocrine therapy (fulvestrant) for patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to compare the costs and effectiveness of three treatment strategies. The first strategy involved adding capivasertib to fulvestrant for all patients, while the second strategy involved adding it for only postmenopausal women. The third strategy involved treatment with fulvestrant alone. Analyses were conducted from a US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Costs were measured in 2023 US dollars, and effectiveness was measured in life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs), discounted at 3% per year. One-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results.

RESULTS

The addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant for all patients was associated with $410,765 higher costs and 1.46 additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with fulvestrant alone, resulting in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $280,854/QALY. The strategy of adding capivasertib for only patients who are postmenopausal was extended dominated, i.e., yielded fewer QALYs at a higher cost per QALY than if capivasertib was added for all patients. These results were found to be robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

At its current price, our analysis suggests that the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant as a second line treatment is not cost effective versus fulvestrant alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. The price of capivasertib will need to be reduced by nearly 70% (to $7000 per cycle) for it to become cost effective.

Cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors have emerged as a significant advancement in the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Despite the clinical efficacy of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, there remains a significant gap in understanding their cost-effectiveness, particularly regarding the long-term economic impact and the key drivers of costs, when used in combination with endocrine therapy. This study aims to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies evaluating CDK4/6 inhibitors in treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and identify key drivers of costs of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies from February 2015 to March 2022 reporting cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in MBC treatment. Incremental net benefits (INBs) were estimated, and meta-analysis was conducted. This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 120 articles, of which 18 were eligible for systematic review and 16 for meta-analysis. None of the three CDK4/6 inhibitors had positive INB compared to endocrine/aromatase inhibitors therapy alone. The pooled INB was estimated at -$149,266.87 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -$196,961.54, -$101,572.20).

CONCLUSION

The combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors and letrozole/endocrine therapy for the treatment of postmenopausal patients with advanced HR+/HER2 - MBC was not cost-effective.

Cost-utility analysis of Palbociclib + letrozole and ribociclib + letrozole versus Letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran using partitioned survival model

BACKGROUND

Palbociclib and Ribociclib are cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 oral molecular inhibitors that have the potential to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-utility of Palbociclib and Ribociclib in comparison with Letrozole monotherapy as the first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC patients in Iran.

METHODS

A Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was conducted using a partitioned survival model (PSM) from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. The comparative strategies considered were Palbociclib + Letrozole, Ribociclib + Letrozole, and Letrozole monotherapy. The model was structured with a 1-month cycle length and a 15-year time horizon. Clinical safety, efficacy, and survival data in terms of PFS and OS for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were obtained from the latest updates of the PALOMA-1, 2, and MONALEESA-2 studies, respectively. Direct medical costs, including drug costs, visits, hospitalization, CT scans, bone x-rays, monitoring and laboratory testing, as well as medication side effects, were considered. Uncertainty evaluations were performed through deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Excel 2016 and TreeAge 2020 were used for all stages of the evaluation.

RESULTS

The base case results indicated that, despite its lower effectiveness, Letrozole monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, while Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole compared to Letrozole monotherapy were estimated at $137,302 and $120,478 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively, which exceeded the target threshold of $4565. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the CUA results were not sensitive to changes in the values of uncertain variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole had no chance of being cost-effective based on changes in various parameters and simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Palbociclib and Ribociclib showed significant efficacy in combination with Letrozole, as evidenced by improvements in PFS. However, in the first-line treatment of MBC in Iran, these strategies were not cost-effective compared to Letrozole monotherapy.

Is Palbociclib a cost-effective strategy in the second-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Palbociclib in the second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in Iran.

METHODS

The present economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model (PSM). This model compares lifetime costs and disease outcomes among groups receiving different medication combinations containing Palbociclib, Fulvestrant, Everolimus, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib as the second-line therapy for HR+/HER2- MBC. The model was conducted from Iran's healthcare perspective, structured with 1-month cycles, and the evaluation time horizon in the base analysis was set to 180 cycles (15 years). Transition probabilities were extracted using the survival curves. The cost information was extracted based on the year 2020. The Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) was considered the final outcome unit, and the cost-effectiveness of different combinations is calculated as cost per QALY. The annual discount rate of 5% was considered for costs and QALYs. Two times Iran's GDP per capita (800,000,000 IRR = US$5934) was used as the threshold. Finally, due to the uncertainty of some parameters, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

The base case results showed that the highest cost was for the 'Ribociclib+ Fulvestrant' combination (US$89,629.56), and the lowest price was for the 'Iranian Everolimus + Fulvestrant' combination (US$10,740.09). 'Palbociclib + Fulvestrant' brings about the highest value of 1.456 incremental QALYs compared to other strategies. Finally, the 'Iranian Palbociclib + Fulvestrant' was the cost-effective combination, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$4,201 compared to other strategies. The base case results were supported by the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of Iranian Palbociclib has a threshold of US$582.99.

CONCLUSIONS

The 'Iranian Palbociclib + Fulvestrant' combination was cost-effective in second-line therapy for HR+ HER2- MBC in Iran.

CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

(1) Background: This study aimed to conduct a NMA and CEA combined study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different CDK4/6 inhibitors (Abem, Palbo, and Ribo) plus NSAI with placebo plus NSAI in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC from the perspective of payers in China. (2) Methods: Studies which evaluated CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI for HR+/HER2- ABC were searched. A Bayesian NMA was carried out and the main outcomes were the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The costs and efficacy of first-line therapies for HR+/HER2- ABC were evaluated using the Markov model. The main outcomes in the CEA were incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). The robustness of the model was assessed by one-way, three-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Then, we further simulated the impact of different prices of CDK4/6 inhibitors on the results. (3) Results: Seven studies involving 5347 patients were included in the NMA. The three first-line CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI groups provided significant PFS and OS superiority to NSAI alone. Abem + NSAI represented a significant statistical advantage onPFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.90, p = 0.009) and indicated a trend of being the best OS benefit compared to the placebo + NSAI group (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72-1.08). The Abem + NSAI, Palbo + NSAI, and Ribo + NSAI groups resulted in additional costs of $12,602, $20,391, and $81,258, with additional effects of 0.38, 0.31, and 0.30 QALYs, respectively, leading to an ICUR of $33,163/QALY, $65,777/QALY, and $270,860/QALY. Additional pairwise comparisons showed that Abem + NSAI was the only cost-effective option in three CDK4/6 inhibitors plus NSAI groups at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $38,029/QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the proportion of receiving subsequent CDK4/6 inhibitors and the cost of Abem significantly influenced the results of Abem + NSAI compared with placebo + NSAI. (4) Conclusion: From the perspective of Chinese payers, Abem + NSAI was a cost-effective treatment option compared with placebo + NSAI at the WTP of $38,029/QALY, since only the ICUR of $33,163/QALY of Abem + NSAI was lower than the WTP of $38,029/QALY in China (2022). The Palbo + NSAI and Ribo + NSAI groups were not cost-effective unless drug prices were adjusted to 50% or 10% of current prices ($320.67 per cycle or $264.60 per cycle). (5) Others: We have prospectively registered the study with the PROSPERO, and the PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023399342.

Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors improve progression-free survival when combined with endocrine therapies in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. However, the comparative cost effectiveness of utilizing three US Food and Drug Administration-approved CDK4/6 inhibitors is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of individual CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib) with letrozole versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the USA.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov-based decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapies over a 40-year lifetime from a third-party payer perspective. The model incorporated health states (progression-free disease, progressive disease, and death), major adverse events (neutropenia), and cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Using clinical efficacy and quality-of-life scores (utility) data from clinical trials, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using Medicare charges reported in US dollars per 2022 valuation and a discount rate of 3% applied to costs and outcomes. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate parametric and decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to letrozole, the model estimated an increase of 5.72, 5.87, and 6.39 in QALYs and costs of $799,178, $788,168, and $741,102 in combining palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib plus letrozole, respectively. Palbociclib or ribociclib plus letrozole were dominated by abemaciclib plus letrozole. Compared with letrozole, abemaciclib plus letrozole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $457,538 per QALY with an incremental cost of $553,621 and an incremental QALY gain of 1.21. The results were sensitive to the cost of abemaciclib, disease progression utility, and patients' age.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY gained, our model predicts that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors plus letrozole is not cost effective with a marginal increase in QALYs at a high cost. Lowering the cost of these drugs or identifying patients who can receive maximal benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitors would improve the value of this regimen in patients.

Fulvestrant plus palbociclib in advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer after fulvestrant monotherapy: Japan Breast Cancer Research Group-M07 (FUTURE trial)

PURPOSE

The combination of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy is a standard treatment for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC); however, their toxicities and financial burden are major issues, especially for prolonged treatment. We investigated fulvestrant plus palbociclib in patients with HR-positive MBC resistant to fulvestrant monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients who initially received fulvestrant as their first- or second-line endocrine therapy were assigned to group A. Patients with disease progression during fulvestrant monotherapy who subsequently received fulvestrant plus palbociclib were assigned to group B. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS1) in group B. We set the threshold median PFS of 5 months (null hypothesis).

RESULTS

Between January 2018 and February 2020 we enrolled 167 patients in group A (January 2018-February 2020) from 55 institutions, of whom 72 subsequently received fulvestrant plus palbociclib and were enrolled in group B. The median follow-up was 23.8 and 8.9 months in groups A and B, respectively. The median PFS in group B (combination therapy) was 9.4 (90% confidence interval [CI]: 6.9-11.2) months (p < 0.001). This was 25.7 (90% CI: 21.2-30.3) months in group A (fulvestrant monotherapy). The TTF in group B was 7.2 (90% CI: 5.5-10.4) months. In the post-hoc analysis, the median PFS1 in group B among patients with longer-duration fulvestrant monotherapy (> 1 year) was longer than that of patients with shorter-duration monotherapy (≤ 1 year) (11.3 vs. 7.6 months). No new toxicities were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that palbociclib plus fulvestrant after disease progression despite fulvestrant monotherapy is potentially safe and effective in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced MBC.

Cost-effectiveness of talazoparib for patients with locally advanced or metastasized breast cancer in Germany

This study evaluated factors that influence the cost-effectiveness of talazoparib, particularly for patients with a germline breast-cancer-gene-(brca)-mutation and locally advanced or metastasized breast cancer within the context of the German healthcare system. We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare medical costs and treatment effectiveness for patients with such cancers over 45 months. Transition probabilities were derived from survival data from a randomized Phase-III EMBRACA trial, utilities based on published reports, and costs in Euros, which included costs for drug acquisition, clinical monitoring, and treatment of adverse events. Willingness-to-pay thresholds were set to be multiples of the current German per capita gross domestic product. Treatment with talazoparib led to a gain of 0.32 life-years (0.22 quality-adjusted life-years). The mean total cost of €84,003 for talazoparib and €12,741 for standard therapy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €223,246 per life-year and €323,932 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, indicating that talazoparib is unlikely to be cost-effective at current pricing.

Is adding ribociclib to fulvestrant cost-effective in treating postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer? A US payer perspective cost utility analysis

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer in women in the United States. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant combination therapy gained US Food and Drug Administration approval to treat postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer in 2018. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant therapy in the target population from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival analysis model composed of 3 health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death) was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant. The progression-free survival and the overall survival data points were extracted from published Kaplan-Meier curves in the MONALEESA-3 study and fitted to parametric curves. The safety and efficacy of the treatment was referenced from the MONALEESA-3 trial. Costs were obtained from standard sources including the Red Book for medication costs, Medicare Clinical Laboratory/Physician Fee Schedule for clinical utilization, and the literature for costs of managing adverse events, subsequent therapy, and end-of-life care. Utility and disutility values were obtained from literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness. Several scenario analyses were also investigated. RESULTS: In the base case, the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm was associated with $522,844 and 3.25 QALYs compared with $50,395 and 2.14 QALYs in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $425,951/QALY. The cost of ribociclib had the biggest impact on the model and constituted 84% of the total cost for the ribociclib plus fulvestrant arm. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis projected that the ribociclib plus fulvestrant treatment would have a net benefit over the placebo plus fulvestrant therapy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $405,600/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the addition of ribociclib to fulvestrant is not considered to be cost-effective in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. The findings send a strong price signal to the manufacturer and can be used to facilitate payers with price negotiation in making coverage decisions.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women

BACKGROUND

In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India.

METHODS

Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective.

RESULTS

In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India.

CONCLUSION

CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy for advanced hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer: a systematic review

Background

Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2−) breast cancer is the most common molecular subtype of breast cancer in many countries, and endocrine therapy remains a mainstay in its treatment. Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors are a new class of targeted agents administered orally that are recommended being used in combination with endocrine therapy as first and second line treatments for advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer. However, their high prices largely hinder using these drugs in real world settings. To offer a new basis for future research, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of combinations of CDK4/6 inhibitors with endocrine therapy in the treatment of advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer.

Methods

We systematically searched several frequently used databases and identified economic evaluations published from February 2015 to April 2021. The systematic review was performed after retrieving the literatures and extracting data based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

Results

The literature search yielded 161 articles, among which fourteen studies (15 articles) with CHEER scores ranging from 58.33% to 87.50% entered the final analysis. Markov models were used in most studies. Based on the currently available data, CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy were less cost-effective in first- or second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer. However, ribociclib plus letrozole was more cost-effective than palbociclib plus letrozole in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women. The economic impacts of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy in non-postmenopausal patients or second-line therapy cannot be fully evaluated due to the limited number of studies. The three most common factors affecting economic outcomes were the prices of CDK4/6 inhibitors, hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, and health status utility values.

Discussion

CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy have shown significantly improved efficacy outcomes in HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer (mBC)/advancer breast cancer (ABC) first-line and second-line treatment for endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant populations, while more potential fields including neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings are being identified to benefit a wider range of breast cancer patients. Meanwhile, risk of severe adverse events that more likely to happen in patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors can lead to reduced life quality and higher medical costs patients need to afford. The adverse drug reaction related cost in several economic burden studies were explored to be primarily driven by hospitalizations and outpatient, and assessment of cost associated with CDK4/6 inhibitors adverse events is worth further developing. Drug wastage costs were found higher in palbociclib regimen than ribociclib regimen due to different dosing patterns. Moreover, current economic evaluations showed that ribociclib plus letrozole had better economic benefits than palbociclib plus letrozole for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2− ABC.

A Cost Analysis with the Discrete-Event Simulation Application in Nurse and Doctor Employment Management

AIM

This study aimed to analyze the treatment cost of a patient, depending on the number of patients treated, patient waiting times, and the number of nurses and doctors employed in an emergency department of a private hospital.

BACKGROUND

Within health systems, changes in healthcare resources can be very costly, especially if these changes are long-term. The discrete-event simulation method described in this paper allows for the monitoring and analysis of complicated changes in real systems by using computer-based modeling.

METHOD

The discrete event simulation model was derived from 9 scenarios according to the number of nurses and doctors, and a comparison was made between the results of the scenarios and the actual results.

RESULTS

Among the scenarios, scenario 6 provided the lowest treatment cost for a patient by employing three doctors and two nurses with the best performance. The cost of treatment for a patient varies betweenŧ 9.00-ŧ 11.00 depending on the value of δ, and the daily cost of these resources to the hospital is ŧ1300.77.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a clear picture of a cost analysis comparison based on changes made about the actual health system in the computer-based simulated environment. Implications for Nursing Management The workforce data of nurses and doctors offers enough detail for cost analysis in healthcare settings to calculate the cost of treatment for a patient.

Nafamostat mesylate overcomes endocrine resistance of breast cancer through epigenetic regulation of CDK4 and CDK6 expression

•

Nafamostat mesylate (NM) causes apoptosis and suppresses metastasis of endocrine-resistant ER-positive breast cancer (ERPBC).

•

Epigenetic downregulation of CDK4/CDK6 by NM in endocrine-resistant ERPBC via disruption of binding of H3K27Ac on promoter region.

•

Combination of nafamostat mesylate and CDK4/6 inhibitor synergistically overcomes endocrine resistance of breast cancer.

•

Nafamostat mesylate would be a well-efficient drug for endocrine-resistant ERPBC.

Breast cancer is common worldwide, and the estrogen receptor-positive subtype accounts for approximately 70% of breast cancer in women. Tamoxifen and fulvestrant are drugs currently used for endocrinal therapy. Breast cancer exhibiting endocrine resistance can undergo metastasis and lead to the death of breast cancer patients. Drug repurposing is an active area of research in clinical medicine. We found that nafamostat mesylate, clinically used for patients with pancreatitis and disseminated intravascular coagulation, acts as an anti-cancer drug for endocrine-resistant estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (ERPBC). Epigenetic repression of CDK4 and CDK6 by nafamostat mesylate induced apoptosis and suppressed the metastasis of ERPBC through the deacetylation of Histone 3 Lysine 27. A combination of nafamostat mesylate and CDK4/6 inhibitor synergistically overcame endocrine resistance in ERPBC. Nafamostat mesylate might be an essential adjuvant or alternative drug for the treatment of endocrine-resistant ERPBC due to the low cost-efficiency of the CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Importance

Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs.

Results

Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Cyclin-dependent kinases-based synthetic lethality: Evidence, concept, and strategy

Synthetic lethality is a proven effective antitumor strategy that has attracted great attention. Large-scale screening has revealed many synthetic lethal genetic phenotypes, and relevant small-molecule drugs have also been implemented in clinical practice. Increasing evidence suggests that CDKs, constituting a kinase family predominantly involved in cell cycle control, are synthetic lethal factors when combined with certain oncogenes, such as MYC, TP53, and RAS, which facilitate numerous antitumor treatment options based on CDK-related synthetic lethality. In this review, we focus on the synthetic lethal phenotype and mechanism related to CDKs and summarize the preclinical and clinical discoveries of CDK inhibitors to explore the prospect of CDK inhibitors as antitumor compounds for strategic synthesis lethality in the future.

Efficacy and safety of CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors as second-line treatment in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy and safety of combinations of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors as second-line treatment in postmenopausal women with HR⁺, HER2^- metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for phase II/III randomized trials evaluating CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors plus fulvestrant. We compared the results with a network meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed following the GRADE approach. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival, overall response rate, overall survival and G3-4 adverse drug events (ADEs).

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were identified in the network meta-analysis. PFS was significantly improved by treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and ribociclib plus fulvestrant compared to pictilisib plus fulvestrant. The ORR following treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant, palbociclib plus fulvestrant, buparlisib plus fulvestrant, and alpelisib plus fulvestrant significantly differed from that observed following treatment with placebo plus fulvestrant. In terms of OS, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and buparlisib plus fulvestrant had a significant difference. The risks of ADEs were similar among three CDK4/6 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

As second-line treatment, three CDK4/6 inhibitors showed superior clinical efficacy compared to other PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors with comparable safety profiles.

Real-world clinical outcome and toxicity data and economic aspects in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy: the experience of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group

Background

We evaluated real-world clinical outcomes and toxicity data and assessed treatment-related costs in patients with advanced breast cancer who received treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKi).

Patients and methods

We conducted a prospective–retrospective analysis of patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer who received a CDKi, in combination with endocrine therapy, at any line of treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Cost analysis was conducted from a public third-payer (National Organization for Healthcare Services Provision (EOPYY)) perspective, assessing only costs related to direct medical care, including drug therapy costs and adverse drug reaction (ADR)-related costs.

Results

From July 2015 to October 2019, 365 women received endocrine therapy combined with CDKi; median age was 61 years, postmenopausal 290 (80.6%) patients. CDKi were administered as first-line treatment in 149 (40.9%) patients, second-line treatment in 96 (26.4%) and third-line treatment and beyond in 119 (32.7%) patients. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia and fatigue. Grade 3–4 adverse events occurred in 86 (23.6%) patients, whereas 8 (2.2%) patients permanently discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The median PFS for patients who received CDKi as first-line, second-line and third-line treatment and beyond was 18.7, 12 and 7.4 months, respectively. The median overall survival since the initiation of CDKi treatment was 29.9 months (95% CI: 23.0–not yet reached (NR)). The mean pharmaceutical therapy cost estimated per cycle was 2 724.12 € for each patient, whereas the main driver of the ADR-related costs was haematological adverse events.

Conclusions

Treatment with CDKi was well tolerated, with a low drug discontinuation rate. Patients who received CDKi as first-line treatment had improved PFS and OS compared with second-line treatment and beyond. The main component of direct medical costs assessed in the cost analysis comprises CDKi pharmaceutical therapy costs.

Trial registration number

NCT04133207

First-line Daratumumab in Addition to Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Who are Transplant Ineligible: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Daratumumab is a standard-of-care treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). According to the ALCYONE trial, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) provides significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in patients with NDMM. However, considering the high price of daratumumab, it is necessary to conduct further research on its efficacy and cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness, from the US payer perspective, of D-VMP vs VMP in the first-line setting for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of VMP with or without daratumumab as the first-line therapy for patients with NDMM. Univariable sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to address the model robustness and uncertainty. Expected value of perfect information analysis was conducted to explore the uncertainty of decision-making and future costs.

FINDINGS

D-VMP provides an additional 2.417 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at a cost of $30,893 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the transition probability of progression-free survival in D-VMP strategy, the price of daratumumab, and body weight of the patient influenced the model results most strongly. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that D-VMP versus VMP has a 90.8% probability of being cost-effective at the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The population expected value of perfect information was $2150 million at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY and $1481 million at $100,000/QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

In this study, D-VMP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with VMP for patients with NDMM at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. (Clin Ther. 2021;43:XXX-XXX) © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in the Second-Line Treatment of Women With HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A US Payer Perspective

Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL) vs. palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL) and fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL) as second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, MONALEESA-3 trial, and PALOMA-3 trial. Parametric survival models were used for four treatments to explore the long-term effect. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. Sensitivity analyses including one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed to observe model stability.

Results: In the PS model, compared with PAL + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.44 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $100,696 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $229,039/QALY. Compared with RIB + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.03 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $518 for an ICUR of $19,314/QALY. Compared with FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.68 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $260,584 for ICUR of $381,450/QALY. From the PS model, the ICUR was $270,576 /QALY (ABE + FUL vs. PAL + FUL), dominated (ABE + FUL vs. RIB + FUL) and $404,493/QALY (ABE + FUL vs. FUL) in scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0% and the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL and RIB + FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0.2, 0.6, and 7.3%.

Conclusions: The findings from the present analysis suggest that ABE + FUL might be cost-effective compared with RIB + FUL and not cost-effective compared with PAL + FUL and FUL for second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib for Hormone Receptor-Positive HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Ribociclib has provided significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, given the high cost of ribociclib, its value must be evaluated based on cost-effectiveness. Thus, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib for postmenopausal patients with HR-positive and HER2-negative ABC.

METHODS

A comprehensive Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant as first-line treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative ABC. Variables were estimated based on data from the randomized Phase III MONALEESA-3 trial. Ten-year values were estimated for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of a United States payer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the model's robustness.

RESULTS

Ribociclib plus fulvestrant increased the treatment cost by $382,172 and provided 0.47 QALYs, relative to fulvestrant alone, which corresponded to an ICER of $813,132 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that ribociclib was unlikely to be cost-effective even under the most favorable assumptions. When the cost of ribociclib was <$1,384, there was a >50% chance of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Subgroup analyses also confirmed that ribociclib was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

At current drug prices in the United States, ribociclib is unlikely to be cost-effective for treating postmenopausal patients with HR-positive HER2-negative ABC. Despite the clinical benefits of ribociclib, its cost would need to decrease to provide more favorable economic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib as initial treatment for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in Singapore

BACKGROUND

CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown promising results for treating advanced breast cancer (ABC) and are routinely used in Singapore. In view of their high costs, it is important to assess their relative value compared to existing standards of care in the local setting.

AIMS

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to goserelin and a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen as initial therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC in Singapore.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free on first-line treatment, progression-free on second-line treatment, progressed disease, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Key clinical inputs were derived from the MONALEESA-7 trial, and survival curves were extrapolated beyond the trial period. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs were obtained from local public healthcare institutions. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and outcomes. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD197, 667 per quality-adjusted life-year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the survival parametric distribution, ribociclib price, time horizon, and utility weights used. Even when these were varied, ICERs remained high and not cost-effective in the local context.

CONCLUSION

At its current price, adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in Singapore for HR+, HER2- ABC. Results from this study are useful to inform future funding decisions for CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside other factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact considerations.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Palbociclib for HR-Positive/HER2 Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Commentary

Despite the achieved advancement in pharmacological cancer treatments, the majority of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will experience disease progression. Research into alternative therapies with improved efficacy and reduced side effects has led to the development of a new class of oral anticancer medications, the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, which include palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that the effectiveness of oral anticancer medications is sub-optimal, being influenced by low adherence, sociodemographic factors, and adverse effect profiles. In addition, there is a disconnect between the high price tags of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and their observed effectiveness, raising questions about their value. Currently, the existing knowledge base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer oral anticancer medications in understudied populations with possible health disparities is scant. This commentary discusses what is known about palbociclib's clinical effectiveness, safety, and adherence and suggests the need for further studies of real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to help establish the value of newer oncologic drugs, such as palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this article. The authors have nothing to disclose.

High-Dose Toremifene as a Promising Candidate Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer with Secondary Resistance to Aromatase Inhibitors

There are currently no established second- and later-line therapies for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We examined the efficacy of high-dose toremifene (HD-TOR) for this patient group and whether aromatase inhibitor (AI) resistance influences HD-TOR treatment outcome. This retrospective analysis investigated the outcomes of 19 women with postmenopausal hormone-sensitive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who received HD-TOR, defined as 120 mg daily from 2012 to 2016. The median follow-up duration was 9.67 months. The overall response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) were compared between various clinical subgroups, including patients exhibiting primary or secondary AI resistance as defined by the timing of recurrence or progression. Time to treatment failure (TTF) was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared between subgroups by the log-rank test. The overall ORR was 21.1%, and the CBR was 31.6%. CBR was significantly higher for patients without liver metastasis (50% vs. 0%, p = 0.044). Nine cases exhibited primary and eight cases secondary AI resistance. Both ORR and CBR were higher in patients with secondary AI resistance (25% vs. 0%, p = 0.087; 38% vs. 11%, p = 0.29). The median TTF was 6.2 months in the entire AI-resistant group (n = 17) and was longer in the secondary resistance subgroup than in the primary resistance subgroup (8.40 vs. 4.87 months; log-rank: p = 0.159). High-dose TOR appears to be most effective for postmenopausal breast cancer cases with secondary resistance to AIs, cases without prior AI treatment, and cases without liver metastasis. The detailed mechanisms of AI resistance and the clinical features of responsive cases need to be further clarified to identify the best candidates for HD-TOR.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors for the management of advanced or metastatic breast cancer in women

PURPOSE

The pharmacology, clinical activity, safety, and place in therapy of the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) inhibitors palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib are reviewed.

SUMMARY

CDK 4 and CDK 6 are downstream agents in the estrogen signaling pathway that control entry into the cell cycle. CDK4/6 inhibition may prevent tumor cell progression in the cell cycle. Three CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are available for women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. These medications' indications in the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer include use with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as initial therapy in postmenopausal women and with fulvestrant in women whose disease progressed during endocrine therapy. Ribociclib is also indicated as initial therapy with an AI in premenopausal or perimenopausal women and as initial therapy with fulvestrant in postmenopausal women. Abemaciclib is also indicated as monotherapy in women with disease progression after endocrine therapy and prior chemotherapy. A significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) was seen with use of all 3 agents as initial therapy with an AI in controlled trials. Each agent also was demonstrated to produce a significant increase in PFS when used with fulvestrant in women whose disease progressed with prior endocrine therapy. Neutropenia is a dose-limiting adverse effect of palbociclib and ribociclib. Fatigue is more common with use of palbociclib and abemaciclib, and gastrointestinal effects are more common with abemaciclib use.

CONCLUSION

CDK4/6 inhibitors have significant demonstrated clinical activity in combination with AIs or fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer and are becoming a standard of care in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the CELESTIAL trial for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cabozantinib showed improved survival compared with placebo but comes at a price. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective of the USA, UK and China.

METHODS

We developed Markov models to simulate the patients pre-treated with first-line sorafenib following the CELESTIAL trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the treatment with cabozantinib or best supportive care. The list price for drugs was acquired from the Red Book, the British National Formulary, West China hospital and reported literature. Adverse events, utilities weights, and transition likelihood between states were sourced from the published randomized phase III trial. A willing-to-pay threshold was set $150 000/QALY in the USA, $70 671/QALY (£50 000/QALY) in the UK and $26 481/QALY (3x GDP per capita) in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to test the models' uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment with cabozantinib increased effectiveness by 0.13 QALYs, resulting in an ICER vs best supportive care of $833 497/QALY in the USA, $304 177/QALY in the UK and $156 437/QALY in China. The models were most sensitive to assumptions about transitions to progression with both cabozantinib and best supportive care, the utility associated with being progression free. These results were robust across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses, including deterministic and probabilistic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib at its current cost would not be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective in the USA, UK or China. Substantial discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Understanding the benefits and challenges of first-line cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in advanced breast cancer among postmenopausal women

Endocrine therapy (ET) has been regarded for many years as the standard treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive (ER+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) without visceral crisis. However, the efficacy of single-agent ET is constrained by the development of resistance, attributed to alterations in several intracellular signaling pathways, including those related to cell cycle dysregulation. The cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) are principal regulators of cell cycle progression from the G1-phase into the DNA synthesis (S)-phase. In vitro inhibition of CDK4/6 activity has potent antiproliferative properties against luminal breast cancer cell lines, which are enhanced when combined with traditional ET. This has led to a substantial interest in targeting this pathway to overcome endocrine resistance in the clinic. Three selective CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) have been approved as first-line therapy in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, or fulvestrant in the case of ribociclib in patients with ER+/HER2- ABC. To date, there is no clue as to which subgroup of patients might benefit most from these combinations. Here, we outline some of the established approaches to overcome endocrine resistance, with special emphasis on the unique mechanism of action of CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Economic evaluations of oral medications for breast cancer treatment in the U.S.: a systematic review with a focus on cost-effectiveness threshold

Introduction: With the advent of targeted therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved several oral anticancer medications (OAMs) for breast cancer (BC). Despite the improved effectiveness of those OAMs, the high financial burden is an issue. Evidence from cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can provide valuable information for decision-makers when deciding whether to use these high-priced medications. Many CEAs on OAMs have been conducted using various analytical approaches and cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs). However, there is no comprehensive systematic review of CEAs across all OAMs.Area covered: PubMed and Cochrane library were used to select for CEAs of OAM for BC in the U.S. published by May 2019. Among the 25 included studies, studies published between 1993 and 2011 analyzed either early BC (n = 11) or advanced/metastatic BC (n = 5), those between 2012-2019 analyzed advanced/metastatic BC (n = 9). Studies including targeted therapies were published after 2009. The CETs tended to increase over time and were higher in the studies for advanced/metastatic BC (median = $125,000) than those for early BC (median = $50,000).Expert commentary: The target population and medications of interest have changed and the methods of articles have evolved. The range of CETs tends to differ by study setting with an increase over time.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Palbociclib as a Second-Line Endocrine Therapy for HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer From the US and Chinese Perspectives

PURPOSE

As a second-line endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR⁺/HER2^-) metastatic breast cancer, palbociclib has demonstrated significant efficacy in prolonging progression-free survival when added to a regimen containing fulvestrant. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib from the perspectives of the United States and China.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs, overall life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to predict the uncertainty of the model developed. The time horizon was 10 years, and the perspective was that of the payer.

FINDINGS

Within a 10-year time horizon, the palbociclib-containing strategy provided an additional 0.568 QALY, with an ICER of 88,854 USD/QALY, in the United States. When palbociclib cost 30%, 20%, and 10% of the current price, the ICERs were 185,526, 42,193, and 98,860 USD/QALY, respectively. In China, the ICER was 182,779 USD/QALY. When palbociclib cost 30%, 20%, and 10% of the current price, the ICERs were 79,558, 64,812, and 50,066 USD/QALY, respectively. In order to meet 50% probability of cost-effectiveness, the estimated price would have to be 32.52 USD/100 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 58,480 USD/QALY (3 × per-capita domestic product of Beijing, China).

IMPLICATIONS

Adding palbociclib to a regimen of fulvestrant is unlikely to be cost-effective as a second-line endocrine therapy for HR⁺/HER2^- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with at the current price in the United States and China. For widely meeting the treatment demands of patients, it may be a better option to decrease the price or provide more patients with a financial assistance program for palbociclib both in the United States and in China.

Cancer drug development: The missing links

IMPACT STATEMENT

The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.

An updated systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies for metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014.

METHODS

This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost-utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND (("metastatic breast cancer") OR ("advanced breast cancer"))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485-498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included.

CONCLUSION

Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature.

Addressing physician barriers to administering cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer

Combination therapy with a cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor (AI) for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (ABC) has demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) over AI monotherapy without adding substantial toxicity. However, CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI therapy is not uniformly used as first-line therapy for ABC, indicating that barriers to CDK4/6 inhibitor use exist. Such barriers may include the following perceptions: patients with bone-only metastases, with a long disease-free interval, or who are older may respond to AI monotherapy and may not benefit from a CDK4/6 inhibitor; tumor response rates may be lower and delayed with CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI therapy than chemotherapy; the increased incidence of adverse events with CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI therapy outweighs benefits; and the cost of CDK4/6 inhibitors may be prohibitive. Some of these barriers are addressed with data from follow-up analyses of CDK4/6 inhibitor trials, which have shown a PFS benefit of combination therapy in all subgroups assessed, including older patients, those with bone-only metastatic disease, and those with a long disease-free interval. Tumor response rates with CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI therapy are comparable to those with first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy. Finally, adverse events associated with CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI therapy are manageable and occur with decreasing severity during treatment, with similar reports of quality of life to those with AI monotherapy. These data support CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI therapy as the standard of care in first-line treatment of ABC.

Overcoming CDK4/6 inhibitor resistance in ER-positive breast cancer

Three inhibitors of CDK4/6 kinases were recently FDA approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy, and they significantly increase the progression-free survival of patients with advanced estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer in the first-line treatment setting. As the new standard of care in some countries, there is the clinical emergence of patients with breast cancer that is both CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy resistant. The strategies to combat these cancers with resistance to multiple treatments are not yet defined and represent the next major clinical challenge in ER+ breast cancer. In this review, we discuss how the molecular landscape of endocrine therapy resistance may affect the response to CDK4/6 inhibitors, and how this intersects with biomarkers of intrinsic insensitivity. We identify the handful of pre-clinical models of acquired resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors and discuss whether the molecular changes in these models are likely to be relevant or modified in the context of endocrine therapy resistance. Finally, we consider the crucial question of how some of these changes are potentially amenable to therapy.

Budget impact of including ribociclib in combination with letrozole on US payer formulary: first-line treatment of post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

The combination of a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitor with the aromatase inhibitor letrozole is a safe and effective alternative to letrozole monotherapy for first-line hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. This study evaluates the budget impact of using the CDK 4/6 inhibitor ribociclib plus letrozole as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, from a United States (US) payer perspective.

METHODS

A cohort-based budget impact model was used to calculate the incremental cost of introducing ribociclib plus letrozole over three years for the target population. The analysis compared two scenarios: treatment options excluding or including ribociclib plus letrozole. Market shares were derived from market research and the assumption was the introduction of ribociclib plus letrozole would only displace existing CDK-based therapies. Treatment duration was based on the median time to treatment discontinuation or median progression-free survival for first-line treatment, and on clinical trial data for second- and third-line treatment. Acquisition costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs and considered co-payment. Costs for drug administration and monitoring, subsequent therapy, and relevant adverse events were included.

RESULTS

Of 1 million insured members, 263 were eligible for CDK 4/6 inhibitor treatment. Cumulative total savings with ribociclib plus letrozole were $3.01M over three years, corresponding to a cumulative incremental cost saving of $318.11 per member treated per month.

CONCLUSIONS

In the US, ribociclib plus letrozole represents a cost-saving first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Ribociclib in hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Establishing a value-based cost in China

BACKGROUND

The addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly increases progression free survival for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). We identified the range of drug costs for which RIB could be considered cost effective from a Chinese perspective.

METHODS

A discrete event simulation model was developed to model the treatment sequences among patients with ABC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. Costs were estimated for Chinese health care systems. Three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China 2016 ($24,360) and three times the per capita GDP of Beijing city 2016 ($53,384) were used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, RIB + LET provided an incremental survival benefit of 0.631 LYs and 0.451 QALYs. When RIB costs less than $721 or $1170 per 4 weeks, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RIB + LET would be less than $24,360 per QALY or $53,384 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A value-based price for the cost of RIB is $732 or $1170 per 4 weeks for China and Beijing City, respectively. Our study is helpful to inform the multilateral drug price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for RIB.

Predictors of prolonged benefit from palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in PALOMA-3

BACKGROUND

The addition of palbociclib to fulvestrant improved clinical outcomes over placebo-fulvestrant in endocrine-pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in PALOMA-3. Here, we examined factors predictive of long-term benefit.

METHODS

Premenopausal-peri/postmenopausal patients with endocrine-resistant, hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC were randomised 2:1 to fulvestrant (500 mg) and either palbociclib (125 mg/d; 3/1 schedule; n = 347) or placebo (n = 174). Baseline characteristics, mutation status and HR expression levels were compared in patients with and without prolonged benefit (treatment duration ≥18 months).

RESULTS

By August 2016, 100 patients (29%) on palbociclib-fulvestrant and 26 (15%) on placebo-fulvestrant demonstrated prolonged benefit, with long-term responders in both arms sharing common clinical characteristics. They usually had less disease burden at baseline versus those treated <18 months, such as having one disease site (40% vs 29% on palbociclib-fulvestrant and 69% vs 29% on placebo-fulvestrant), bone-only disease (32% vs 22% and 46% vs 17%) and were less heavily pretreated (69% vs 56% and 73% vs 60% had ≤2 prior therapies). Baseline tumour ESR1 and PIK3CA mutation rates were lower among long-term responders in both arms; median oestrogen receptor H-scores were similar, whereas progesterone receptor H-scores were higher among long-term responders.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory analysis demonstrates that some patients with endocrine-resistant MBC derive significant and prolonged benefit when treated with palbociclib-fulvestrant, with fewer patients experiencing similar efficacy with placebo-fulvestrant. The current analysis did not identify specific molecular or clinical factors prognostic of long-term benefit with palbociclib-fulvestrant (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01942135).

Everolimus-based combination therapies for HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is the leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality among women worldwide. Endocrine therapy is the standard of care for the most common subtype of MBC, hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) disease. Advances in treating this type of MBC have focused on improving the efficacy of endocrine therapy by adding agents that target specific molecular pathways of breast cancer cell growth and survival. The combination of the aromatase inhibitor exemestane and the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, everolimus, more than doubled median progression-free survival compared with exemestane alone (7.8 vs 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.45 [95% confidence interval 0.38-0.54]; log rank P < 0.0001) in the BOLERO-2 study in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that had recurred or progressed on prior non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy. In addition, everolimus plus exemestane was associated with a manageable safety profile. The results of BOLERO-2 led to regulatory approval of everolimus plus exemestane. Additional everolimus-based combinations have been or are under investigation in the HR+, HER2- MBC setting, including combinations with letrozole, fulvestrant, ribociclib, tamoxifen, and chemotherapy. This review summarizes key data on everolimus-based combinations focusing on efficacy, safety, biomarkers, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. These data are discussed in the context of the changing MBC treatment algorithm to provide insights into the clinical relevance of everolimus-based combinations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ribociclib plus Letrozole Versus Palbociclib plus Letrozole and Letrozole Monotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A U.S. Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

U.S. regulatory approvals of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib as add-ons to letrozole greatly enhance the prospects for treating postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Clinical trials have established that the combination of a CDK 4/6 inhibitor with letrozole can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole monotherapy and is safe and well tolerated. Cost-effectiveness studies are required to inform payers and clinical decision makers on the money value of combination treatment in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole and versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer from a U.S. private third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model including 3 health states (progression free, with either overall response or stable disease; progressed disease; and death) simulated lifetime costs and outcomes over a 40-year lifetime horizon with a 1-month cycle length. Clinical efficacy data (PFS and overall survival [OS]) were derived from a phase III trial of ribociclib plus letrozole (MONALEESA-2; NCT01958021), a phase II trial of palbociclib plus letrozole (PALOMA-1; NCT00721409), and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Health care costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, disease management, subsequent therapies, and serious drug-related adverse events. Effectiveness was measured in life-years, derived from survival projections, and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), calculated from time spent in each state combined with health-state utility values. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty in key model parameters on results, and probabilistic uncertainty was assessed through a Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Ribociclib plus letrozole was dominant versus palbociclib plus letrozole, with a cost saving of $43,037 and a gain of 0.086 QALYs. Compared with letrozole monotherapy, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of $144,915 and an incremental QALY of 0.689, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $210,369 per QALY. Key model drivers included OS HRs for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole and for ribociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, the PFS HR for palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole, PD health-state costs, utility of response, and cost discount rate. The probabilities that ribociclib plus letrozole was cost-effective versus letrozole at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained were 1.6%, 6.3%, and 50.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, ribociclib plus letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to palbociclib plus letrozole for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ribociclib plus letrozole is also cost-effective versus letrozole monotherapy at willingness-to-pay thresholds greater than $198,000 per QALY (for probabilistic analysis).

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided by Novartis, which manufactures ribociclib and provided input on the study design and data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Mistry, May, Suri, and Young are employees of PAREXEL. Tang, Mishra, D. Bhattacharyya, and Dalal are employees of Novartis. S. Bhattacharyya was an employee of Novartis during the study period. Tang and Dalal hold stock in Novartis. Brixner, Oderda, and Biskupiak were paid by Millcreek Outcomes Group as consultants for work on this project. Brixner has also consulted for AstraZeneca, UCB, Regeneron, and Abbott.

Role of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in the current and future eras of cancer treatment

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, which act by inhibiting progression from the G1 to S phases of the cell cycle, include palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib, and trilaciclib. Palbociclib and ribociclib are currently food and drug administration-approved for use in combination with aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women with metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. Palbociclib is also food and drug administration-approved for use in combination with fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer progressing after endocrine therapy. Abemaciclib is the newest cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor to gain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, specifically as monotherapy for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Abemaciclib also shares a similar indication with palbociclib for use in combination with fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer progressing after endocrine therapy. Trilaciclib use remains largely investigational at this time. However, despite FDA-approval for only metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer, all four cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors have shown promise in hematologic malignancies and non-breast solid tumors. Although further research is needed, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors represent intriguing developments in the treatment of various malignancies, including those with such poor prognoses as glioblastoma multiforme, mantle cell lymphoma, and metastatic melanoma. We discuss the approved indications, current research, and areas of future exploration for palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib, and trilaciclib.

Olaparib for the treatment of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes account for around 2-3% of breast cancer events and more than 10% of triple negative breast cancers. Olaparib (Lynparza®), an orally administered PARP inhibitor, demonstrated clinical benefit in a phase III trial for mutated BRCA-positive HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer. Areas covered: This review gives an overview of available preclinical and clinical data regarding olaparib, including its chemistry, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and evidence supporting antitumor efficacy and safety profile in breast cancer patients. Expert commentary: Olaparib improves progression-free survival in germline BRCA mutated HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer patients as compared to standard chemotherapy, with a manageable toxicity profile. Efficacy is of clinical relevance especially in the context of triple negative breast cancer. However, several aspects, such as sequencing or combination of these agents with other anticancer agents and identification of appropriate biomarkers, still need to be clearly defined.

Palbociclib in hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer: A cost-utility analysis

INTRODUCTION

The addition of palbociclib to letrozole improves progression-free survival in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assesses the cost-utility of palbociclib from the Canadian healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A probabilistic discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed and parameterised with data from the PALOMA 1 and 2 trials and other sources. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gained for palbociclib was calculated. A time horizon of 15 years was used in the base case with costs and effectiveness discounted at 5% annually. Time-to- progression and time-to-death were derived from a Weibull and exponential distribution. Expected costs were based on Ontario fees and other sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to letrozole, the addition of palbociclib provided an additional 14.7 QALM at an incremental cost of $161,508. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10,999/QALM gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $4167/QALM, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 0%. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a WTP of $11,000/QALM gained, the probability of palbociclib to be cost-effective was 50%.

CONCLUSION

The addition of palbociclib to letrozole is unlikely to be cost-effective for the treatment of ABC from a Canadian healthcare perspective with its current price. While ABC patients derive a meaningful clinical benefit from palbociclib, considerations should be given to increase the WTP threshold and reduce the drug pricing, to render this strategy more affordable.