U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Associations between pharmaceutical industry payments to physicians and prescription of PARP inhibitors in the United States

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between industry payments to physicians related to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) and physicians' prescribing behaviors for PARPis.

METHODS

This panel-data analysis used the publicly accessible Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D database between 2017 and 2021. All physicians who reported >10 claims for either olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib were included in this study. Non-research payments for the PARPis to the physicians from the PARPi manufacturers were extracted from the Open Payments Database. Associations between the physicians' receipt of payments and likelihood of prescribing PARPis were assessed with logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Dose-response associations between the number of payments and prescription volumes and Medicare expenditures were evaluated with linear GEEs.

RESULTS

Of the 1686 eligible physician prescribers, 68.7% received one or more non-research payments related to any of the three PARPis from the manufacturers between 2017 and 2021. Median annual payments per physician were $57 for olaparib, $39 for rucaparib, and $62 for niraparib. Receipt of payments for each PARPi was associated with higher odds of prescribing olaparib (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.14-1.48], p < 0.001), rucaparib (OR: 2.07 [95% CI: 1.58-2.72], p < 0.001), and niraparib (OR: 1.49 [95% CI: 1.22-1.81], p < 0.001). Dose-response effects were observed between the number of annual payments and the number of prescriptions and/or Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib.

CONCLUSION

Non-research payments to physician prescribers of PARP inhibitors from the manufacturers were significantly associated with increased prescriptions and Medicare expenditures for olaparib and rucaparib in the United States.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab as a first-line maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer by molecular status: an updated PAOLA-1 based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system.

METHODS

Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model's stability.

RESULTS

The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

HRD related signature 3 predicts clinical outcome in advanced tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated usability of single base substitution signature 3 (Sig3) as a biomarker for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective observational trial includes 165 patients with advanced HGSC. Fresh tissue samples (n = 456) from multiple intra-abdominal areas at diagnosis and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) were collected for whole-genome sequencing. Sig3 was assessed by fitting samples independently with COSMIC v3.2 reference signatures. An HR scar assay was applied for comparison. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were studied using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

Sig3 has a bimodal distribution, eliminating the need for an arbitrary cutoff typical in HR scar tests. Sig3 could be assessed from samples with low (10%) cancer cell proportion and was consistent between multiple samples and stable during NACT. At diagnosis, 74 (45%) patients were HRD (Sig3+), while 91 (55%) were HR proficient (HRP, Sig3-). Sig3+ patients had longer PFS and OS than Sig3- patients (22 vs. 13 months and 51 vs. 34 months respectively, both p < 0.001). Sig3 successfully distinguished the poor prognostic HRP group among BRCAwt patients (PFS 19 months for Sig3+ and 13 months for Sig3- patients, p < 0.001). However, Sig3 at diagnosis did not predict chemoresponse anymore in the first relapse. The patient-level concordance between Sig3 and HR scar assay was 87%, and patients with HRD according to both tests had the longest median PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Sig3 is a prognostic marker in advanced HGSC and useful tool in patient stratification for HRD.

The cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance olaparib plus Bevacizumab in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: based on the final survival results from PAOLA-1 trial

INTRODUCTION

In 2023, the final PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) survival data were published documenting the benefits of therapy consisting of olaparib plus bevacizumab for patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) as a function of molecular status. In light of these new data, the present study was conducted with the goal of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for the treatment of the overall AOC patient population and for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations, homologous recombination proficiency (HRD)-positive, or patients not harboring BRCA mutations AOC from a US payers perspective.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model with a 15-year time horizon was used to evaluate outcomes of patients administered Olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were evaluated in this study in light of a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The stability of the established model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Relative to bevacizumab alone, Olaparib plus bevacizumab was associated with mean incremental costs and QALYs (LYs) of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab were $293,656 and 1.85 (2.16), $265,668 and 3.34 (4.02), $242,746 and 1.71 (2.06), and $193,792 and 0.97 (1.14) for overall, BRCA mutation-positive, HRD-positive, and HRD-positive BRCA mutation-negative AOC patients, respectively. The corresponding ICER values for these patient subgroups were $158,729 ($136,218), $79,434 ($66,120), $141,636 ($117,747), and $200,595 ($169,733) per QALY (LY) gained Utility value and the price of olaparib were identified in sensitivity analyses as the primary factors influencing these results.

CONCLUSION

At current pricing levels, maintenance treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment may represent a cost-effective therapeutic option for BRCA mutations and HRD-positive AOC patients in the USA.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Cost-effectiveness of maintenance niraparib with an individualized starting dosage in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China

Objective: Niraparib improved survival in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) patients versus routine surveillance, accompanied by increased costs. Based on the NORA trial, we evaluated for the first time the cost-effectiveness of maintenance niraparib with individualized starting dosage (ISD) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the costs and health outcomes of each strategy. The total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate model robustness. Scenario analyses were also conducted. Results: Compared to routine surveillance, niraparib additionally increased QALYs by 0.59 and 0.30 in populations with and without germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations, with incremental costs of $10,860.79 and $12,098.54, respectively. The ICERs of niraparib over routine surveillance were $18,653.67/QALY and $39,212.99/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,488/QALY, the ISD enhanced the likelihood of cost-effectiveness from 9.35% to 30.73% in the gBRCA-mutated group and from 0.77% to 11.74% in the non-gBRCA mutated population. The probability of niraparib being cost-effective in the region with the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in China was 74.23% and 76.10% in the gBRCA-mutated and non-gBRCA mutated population, respectively. Niraparib was 100% cost-effective for National Basic Medical Insurance beneficiaries under the above WTP thresholds. Conclusion: Compared to routine surveillance, the ISD of niraparib for maintenance treatment of PSROC is cost-effective in the gBRCA-mutated population and more effective but costly in the non-gBRCA mutated patients. The optimized niraparib price, economic status, and health insurance coverage may benefit the economic outcome.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of niraparib maintenance therapy in Chinese patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China.

METHOD

A three-state partitioned survival model that adopted a lifetime horizon with a 4-week cycle length was developed. Efficacy data were derived from the NORA study. Cost and utility data were obtained from published studies and online databases. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. In this analysis, the primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2022 ($12,741 to $38,233/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, niraparib was not found to be cost-effective, with an ICER of $42,888/QALY compared with routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICER value was most sensitive to the cost of subsequent treatment in placebo group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the WTP thresholds, the probability of niraparib being cost-effective was 2.9% to 50.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Niraparib improves the survival benefit of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. However, it seems to be less cost-effective, as it has higher costs than routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. Reasonable dose reduction according to the patient's actual situation or lowering the price of niraparib can improve its cost-effectiveness.

Ovarian preservation compared to oophorectomy in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial Cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Standard treatment for endometrial cancer is a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node assessment. In premenopausal women, removal of the ovaries may not be necessary and could increase the risk of all-cause mortality. We sought to estimate the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of oophorectomy versus ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was designed using TreeAge software comparing oophorectomy to ovarian preservation in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer. We used a theoretical cohort of 10,600 women to represent our population of interest in the United States in 2021. Outcomes included cancer recurrences, ovarian cancer diagnoses, deaths, rates of vaginal atrophy, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000/QALY. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Oophorectomy resulted in more deaths and higher rates of vaginal atrophy, while ovarian preservation resulted in 100 cases of ovarian cancer. Ovarian preservation resulted in lower costs and higher QALYs making it cost effective when compared to oophorectomy. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the probability of cancer recurrence after ovarian preservation and probability of developing ovarian cancer were the most impactful variables in our model.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian preservation is cost-effective in premenopausal women with early-stage, low-grade endometrial cancer when compared to oophorectomy. Ovarian preservation may prevent surgical menopause, which may improve quality of life and overall mortality without compromising oncologic outcomes, and should be strongly considered in premenopausal women with early stage disease.

Cost-effectiveness of fuzuloparib compared to routine surveillance, niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma in China

Background: Maintenance therapy with the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma (OC) have proven to be effective compared with placebo. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of maintenance fuzuloparib compared to routine surveillance (RS), niraparib and olaparib for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC from the Chinese healthcare systems. Method: A partitioned survival model with three-state (progression-free, progressed, death) was constructed utilizing TreeAge Pro 2011 software to evaluate the economic value of fuzuloparib, niraparib and olaparib maintenance treatment for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC based on the clinical data derived from FZOCUS-2, ENGOT-OV16/NOVA and ENGOT-Ov21/SOLO2. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in those trials. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs were measured for this analysis. A 5 years horizon and 5%/year discount rates were used. One-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Total cost of fuzuloparib, niraparib and olaparib were $31628.10, $48183.48 and $54605.54, whereas they had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $31992.69, $32216.08 and $23359.26 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) QALYs gained compared with RS, relatively. Model showed that maintenance fuzuloparib achieved at least an 85.5% probability of CE at the threshold of $37654.50/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were sensitive to the PFS and the price of medicines. Conclusion: Fuzuloparib was less cost-effective for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation and platinum-sensitive recurrent OC compared to olaparib, but was superior to niraparib from the Chinese healthcare systems perspective.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homologous Recombination Deficiency Assays in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: Current Status and Future Direction

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients are generally diagnosed at an advanced stage, usually relapse after initial treatments, which include debulking surgery and adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, and eventually have poor 5-year survival of less than 50%. In recent years, promising survival benefits from maintenance therapy with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor (PARPi) has changed the management of EOC in newly diagnosed and recurrent disease. Identification of BRCA mutations and/or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is critical for selecting patients for PARPi treatment. However, the currently available HRD assays are not perfect predictors of the clinical response to PARPis in EOC patients. In this review, we introduce the concept of synthetic lethality, the rationale of using PARPi when HRD is present in tumor cells, the clinical trials of PARPi incorporating the HRD assays for EOC, the current HRD assays, and other HRD assays in development.

Genomic Determinants of Homologous Recombination Deficiency across Human Cancers

Germline BRCA1/2 mutations associated with HRD are clinical biomarkers for sensitivity to poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) treatment in breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancers. However, it remains unclear whether other mutations may also lead to HRD and PARPi sensitivity across a broader range of cancer types. Our goal was to determine the germline or somatic alterations associated with the HRD phenotype that might therefore confer PARPi sensitivity. Using germline and somatic genomic data from over 9000 tumors representing 32 cancer types, we examined associations between HRD scores and pathogenic germline variants, somatic driver mutations, and copy number deletions in 30 candidate genes involved in homologous recombination. We identified several germline and somatic mutations (e.g., BRCA1/2, PALB2, ATM, and ATR mutations) associated with HRD phenotype in ovarian, breast, pancreatic, stomach, bladder, and lung cancer. The co-occurrence of germline BRCA1 variants and somatic TP53 mutations was significantly associated with increasing HRD in breast cancer. Notably, we also identified multiple somatic copy number deletions associated with HRD. Our study suggests that multiple cancer types include tumor subsets that show HRD phenotype and should be considered in the future clinical studies of PARPi and synthetic lethality strategies exploiting HRD, which can be caused by a large number of genomic alterations.

How are we evaluating the cost-effectiveness of companion biomarkers for targeted cancer therapies? A systematic review

Background

Despite the increasing economic assessment of biomarker-guided therapies, no clear agreement exists whether existing methods are sufficient or whether different methods might produce different cost-effectiveness results. This study aims to examine current practices of modeling companion biomarkers when assessing the cost-effectiveness of targeted cancer therapies. It investigates the current methods in modeling the characteristics of companion diagnostics based on existing economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies in cancer.

Methods

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane library for economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in cancer. Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies were selected using pre-specified eligibility criteria based on the PICO framework. To make the included studies more comparable, we qualitatively synthesized the data under nine domains of methods where consensus was deemed lacking.

Results

Only four of the twenty-two studies included in this review were found to be of good quality with respect to incorporating the characteristics of companion biomarkers in economic evaluations. However, many evaluations focused on a pre-selected patient group rather than including all patients regardless of their biomarker status. Companion biomarker characteristics captured in evaluations were often limited to the cost or the accuracy of the test. Often, only the costs of biomarker testing were modelled. Clinical outcomes and health state utilities were often not included due to the limited data generated by clinical trials. Methods of economic evaluation were not applied consistently in assessments of companion cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies. It was also shown that conflicting cost-effectiveness results were likely depending on what comparator arm was chosen and what comparison structure was designed in the model.

Conclusion

We found no consistent approach applied in assessing the value of companion biomarker tests and including the characteristics of biomarkers in an economic evaluation of targeted oncology therapies. Currently, many economic evaluations fail to capture the full value of companion biomarkers beyond sensitivity/specificity and cost related to biomarker testing.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08725-4.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

Objective: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.Methods: A decision analysis model compared the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib versus placebo for patients with or without germline BRCA mutations. Resource use and associated costs were estimated from the 2020 National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Clinical effectiveness was measured in progression-free survival per life-years (PFS-LY) based on the results of clinical trials SOLO2/ENHOT-Ov21 and ENGOT-OV16/NOVA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a single-payer perspective.Results: In the base case, olaparib was the more cost-effective treatment regimen. The ICERs for olaparib and niraparib compared to placebo were NT$1,804,785 and NT$2,340,265 per PFS-LY, respectively. Tornado analysis showed that PFS and the total resource use cost of niraparib regimen for patients without gBRCA were the most sensitive parameters impacting the ICER. The ICERs for both drugs in patients with a gBRCA mutation were lower than in patients without a gBRCA mutation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that olaparib was more cost-effective than niraparib at the willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$2,602,404 per PFS life-year gained.Conclusion: Olaparib was estimated to be less cost and more effective compared to niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

RESULTS

We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987).

CONCLUSION

Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

Cost-utility of talazoparib monotherapy treatment for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in Spain

Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies. The aim of the article is to analyse the cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact of talazoparib treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic gBRCA + breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Analyses were based on the EMBRACA clinical trial and the model was constructed according to “partitioned survival analysis”. Two scenarios were considered in order to compare talazoparib with the alternatives of capecitabine, vinorelbine and eribulin: 1. Chemotherapy in patients pre-treated with anthracyclines/taxanes and, 2. A second- and subsequent-line treatment option. Treatment types following relapse were recorded in the mentioned clinical trial. The effectiveness measure used was quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The average health cost of patients treated at 43 months with talazoparib was 84,360.86€, whilst current treatment costs were 26,683.90€. The effectiveness of talazoparib was 1.93 years of survival (1.09 QALY) relative to 1.58 years (0.83 QALY) in the treatment group. The incremental cost-utility ratio was 252,420.04€/QALY. This represents the additional cost required to earn an additional QALY when changing from regular treatment to talazoparib. Regarding budgetary impact, the number of patients susceptible to receiving treatment with between 94 and 202 talazoparib was estimated, according to scenario and likelihood. The 3-year cost difference was between 6.9 and 9 million euros. The economic evaluation conducted shows an elevated incremental cost-utility ratio and budgetary impact. Taking these results into account, the price of talazoparib would have to be lower than that taken as a reference to reach the cost-utility thresholds.

•

As far as the authors know, this paper is the first economic evaluation of iPARP in advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

•

Talazoparib does not extend the median survival time compared to capecitabine, vinorelbine and eribulin.

•

As for low survival improvement of talazoparib, it should be used with caution in patients with breast cancer BRCA mutation.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib maintenance therapy when used with and without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer

Objectives: To determine whether olaparib maintenance therapy, used with and without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status, is cost-effective at the population level for platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer in Singapore.Methods: A partitioned survival model compared three management strategies: 1) treat all patients with olaparib; 2) test for germline BRCA1/2 mutation, followed by targeted olaparib use in mutation carriers only; 3) observe all patients. Mature overall survival (OS) data from Study 19 and a 15-year time horizon were used and direct medical costs were applied. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.Results: Treating all patients with olaparib was the most costly and effective strategy, followed by targeted olaparib use, and observation of all patients. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for all-olaparib and targeted use strategies were SGD133,394 (USD100,926) and SGD115,736 (USD87,566) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively, compared to observation. ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of olaparib, time horizon and discount rate for outcomes. When these parameters were varied, ICERs remained above SGD92,000 (USD69,607)/QALY.Conclusions: At the current price, olaparib is not cost-effective when used with or without restriction by BRCA1/2 mutation status in Singapore, despite taking into account potential OS improvement over a long time horizon.

Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine if laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to assess disease resectability in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care payer perspective was performed comparing two strategies: (1) a standard evaluation strategy, where a conventional approach to treatment planning was used to assign patients to either primary cytoreduction (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction (NACT), and (2) a laparoscopy strategy, where patients considered candidates for PCS would undergo laparoscopy to triage between PCS or NACT based on the laparoscopy-predicted likelihood of complete gross resection. A microsimulation model was developed that included diagnostic work-up, surgical and adjuvant treatment, perioperative complications, and progression-free survival (PFS). Model parameters were derived from the literature and our published data. Effectiveness was defined in quality-adjusted PFS years. Results were tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000 per year of quality-adjusted PFS.

RESULTS

The laparoscopy strategy led to additional costs (average additional cost $7034) but was also more effective (average 4.1 months of additional quality-adjusted PFS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of laparoscopy was $20,376 per additional year of quality-adjusted PFS. The laparoscopy strategy remained cost-effective even as the cost added by laparoscopy increased. The benefit of laparoscopy was influenced by mitigation of serious complications and their associated costs. The laparoscopy strategy was cost-effective across a range of WTP thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to improve primary treatment planning for patients with untreated advanced ovarian cancer.

Total and out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors among insured ovarian cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate total and out-of-pocket costs for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and differences based on insurance characteristics.

METHODS

We identified ovarian cancer patients who were prescribed niraparib, olaparib, or rucaparib from the MarketScan (2014-2017) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare (2014-2016) databases. Drug costs were estimated for a 30-day supply. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed.

RESULTS

590 commercially insured beneficiaries from MarketScan and 213 SEER-Medicare beneficiaries were prescribed PARP inhibitors for a median 112 days. For commercially insured beneficiaries, median total cost was $13,342 (IQR $12,022-$14,256). Median out-of-pocket cost was $44 (IQR $0-$120) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 90.8% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. High-deductible health plan was not associated with higher out-of-pocket costs (N = 570; median $0 vs. $45, P = 0.87). For SEER-Medicare beneficiaries, median total cost was $12,798 (IQR $11,704-$13,180). Median out-of-pocket cost was $370 (IQR $2-$1234) and PARP inhibitors accounted for a median 99.0% of patients' total out-of-pocket drug spending. Out-of-pocket costs were lower for dual-eligible patients with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage (N = 209; median $1 vs. $911, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although insurers are responsible for a large proportion of PARP inhibitor costs, out-of-pocket costs for PARP inhibitors account for a majority of patients' drug spending. SEER-Medicare beneficiaries had higher out-of-pocket costs than patients with commercial insurance, which was offset for those with supplemental Medicaid prescription coverage.

A Critical Appraisal and Recommendations for Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Advanced Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women in the US. With poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors having shown promising results in ongoing trials, there is interest in better understanding their economic value.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review and evaluate the quality of published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), and provide recommendations for CEAs in this setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in June 2019 to identify CEAs of PARP inhibitors in treating advanced ovarian cancer from peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Key information from the identified publications were extracted and reviewed. The quality of full-text studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. Recommendations for future CEAs were developed based on the findings from the literature review.

RESULTS

Eighteen CEAs (five in full texts) met the inclusion criteria. Most adopted a US healthcare or societal perspective. The majority of the studies did not clearly display the economic model structure. No studies reported the validation of model projections based on internal or external data. Surrogate outcomes such as incremental costs per progression-free life-year gained were the most common outcomes reported. The majority of studies drew their conclusions based on surrogate outcomes, even with no theoretical or empirical threshold for cost effectiveness. All five full-text studies included some type of sensitivity or scenario analyses. The key drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were treatment duration, effects, and costs, health utility, and prevalence of BRCA mutations.

CONCLUSION

In the existing CEAs for PARP inhibitors, there were uncertainties and challenges leading to variation in quality. We provided recommendations to improve consistency and quality of CEAs in this setting, which will help to better understand the value of PARP inhibitors, improve decision making, and reduce potential misallocation of resources.

Therapeutic options following second-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer: Comparison of active surveillance and maintenance treatment

Most women with advanced ovarian cancer respond to initial treatment, consisting of surgical resection and ≈6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. However, disease recurrence occurs in most patients, and subsequent therapies become necessary. Historically, close monitoring following treatment (active surveillance) was the only available option, as continued maintenance chemotherapy treatment led to increased toxicity without providing any meaningful clinical benefit. Recently, targeted therapy with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab and the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as maintenance treatment for recurrent disease. Despite consensus guidelines recommending their use, maintenance treatments are currently underutilized. Here, we review evidence from pivotal clinical trials of approved second-line maintenance treatments demonstrating efficacy in terms of progression-free survival and postprogression efficacy outcomes for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Adverse events frequently associated with bevacizumab include hypertension, proteinuria, and non-central nervous system bleeding, whereas PARP inhibitors are associated with nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and anemia. Patient-centered outcomes analyses show that PARP inhibitors provide significant benefits to patient health status, even when accounting for the toxicities associated with treatment. Many factors influence the selection of second-line maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, including the maintenance treatment received in the first-line setting. Overall, targeted maintenance treatment represents a new standard of care for patients with ovarian cancer, and we recommend that maintenance treatment should be offered to all eligible patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy.

METHODS

The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained.

RESULTS

PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.

Real-world evidence of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in the treatment of ovarian cancer: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

The treatment landscape for ovarian cancer has shifted in recent years with the approval of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors in 2014. Most patients with ovarian cancer have advanced disease at diagnosis. Understanding how treatments for advanced disease work in real-world settings must be assessed to provide care for these patients. Therefore, the objective of this study was to locate and assess real-world studies measuring the safety and effectiveness of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors and analyze the results.Data sources: A targeted systematic literature review was conducted in April 2020 of PubMed/Medline. Inclusion criteria consisted of observational studies using real-world data of olaparib, rucaparib, or niraparib as an intervention in the treatment of ovarian cancer. In addition, studies needed to assess either clinical effectiveness or safety. Once studies were identified, we aimed to narratively describe the studies' patient population, intervention effectiveness, and/or safety.Data summary: Our systematic review identified six studies assessing the real-world effectiveness and/or safety of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, with five assessing olaparib, one assessing poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors as a composite, and none assessing either niraparib or rucaparib. The median progression free survival in the real-world trials for olaparib ranged from 12.7 to 15.6 months. The median overall survival in the real-world trials for olaparib ranged from 30.9 to 35.4 months. Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events for olaparib ranged from 4.4% to 12.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies showed slightly higher, but comparable results for median progression free survival, median overall survival, and discontinuation due to adverse events compared to the respective randomized controlled trials.

Patient preferences for maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy in ovarian cancer treatment

OBJECTIVE

To measure preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding risks, side effects, costs and benefits afforded by maintenance therapy (MT) with a poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment elicited preferences of women with ovarian cancer regarding 6 attributes (levels in parentheses) relevant to decisions for MT versus treatment break: (1) overall survival (OS; 36, 38, 42 months); (2) progression-free survival (PFS; 15, 17, 21 months); (3) nausea (none, mild, moderate); (4) fatigue (none, mild, moderate); (5) probability of death from myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myelogenous leukemia (MDS/AML; 0% to 10%); (6) monthly out-of-pocket cost ($0 to $1000). Participants chose between 2 variable MT scenarios and a static scenario representing treatment break, with multiple iterations. Random-parameters logit regression was applied to model choices as a function of attribute levels.

RESULTS

95 eligible participants completed the survey; mean age was 62, 48% had recurrence, and 17% were ever-PARP inhibitor users. Participants valued OS (average importance weight 24.5 out of 100) and monthly costs (24.6) most highly, followed by risk of death from MDS/AML (17.9), nausea (14.7), PFS (10.5) and fatigue (7.8). Participants would accept 5% risk of MDS/AML if treatment provided 2.2 months additional OS or 4.8 months PFS. Participants would require gains of 2.6 months PFS to accept mild treatment-related fatigue and 4.4 months to accept mild nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering MT, women with ovarian cancer are most motivated by gains in OS. Women expect at least 3-4 months of PFS benefit to bear mild side effects of treatment.