Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab monotherapy in the maintenance of patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The PAOLA-1 trial confirmed that adding olaparib to bevacizumab significantly increased clinical benefit following response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency-positive ovarian cancer. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment for patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer from the Spanish National Health System perspective.

METHODS

A lifetime partitioned survival model with four health states (progression-free, post-progression 1, post-progression 2, and death) and monthly cycles was developed. Long-term survival, defined as 60 months, was included as a landmark to extrapolate progression-free survival from PAOLA-1. Weibull distribution was selected as the most accurate survival model for progression-free survival extrapolation. Time to second progression and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric survival models. Mortality was obtained from the overall survival and adjusted by Spanish women mortality rates. Health state utilities and utility decrements for adverse events were included. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Direct costs (in 2021 euros (€)) were obtained from local sources and included drug acquisition and administration, subsequent therapies, monitoring costs, adverse events, and palliative care. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased QALYs and life-years by 2.39 and 2.77, respectively, at an incremental cost of €58 295.31, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €24 371/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 49.5% and 90.3% probability of being cost-effective versus bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €25 000 and €60 000 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSION

For patients with homologous recombination deficiency-positive advanced ovarian cancer, olaparib plus bevacizumab is a cost-effective maintenance therapy compared with bevacizumab alone in Spain.

Economic Evaluation of Sacituzumab Govitecan for the Treatment of Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China and the US

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on mTNBC from the Chinese and United States (US) perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of SG versus single-agent chemotherapy based on clinical data from the ASCENT phase 3 randomized trial. Cost and utility data were obtained from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to observe model stability. A Markov model was constructed to validate the results.

RESULTS

In China, SG yielded an additional 0.35 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of Chinese Renminbi ¥2257842. The ICER was ¥6375856 ($924037)/QALY. In the US, SG yielded the same additional QALY at an extra cost of $175393 and the ICER was $494479/QALY. Similar results were obtained from the Markov model. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that SG price had the greatest impact on the ICER. PSA showed the probability of SG to be cost-effective when compared with chemotherapy was zero at the current willing-to-pay threshold of ¥217341/QALY and $150000/QALY in China and the US, respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness of SG would approximate 50% if its price was reduced to ¥10.44/mg in China and $3.65/mg in the US.

CONCLUSION

SG is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment of mTNBC at the current price both in China and the US.

Bevacizumab as First-line Treatment for HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab Versus Other Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of paclitaxel and bevacizumab (PB) compared with other chemotherapies in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2^-) advanced breast cancer is unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 301 patients with HER2^- ABC who received first-line chemotherapy from January 2011 to December 2016.

RESULTS

We included 114 patients who received PB and 187 patients who received other chemotherapies. After propensity score matching, the PB group showed a significantly superior overall response rate (77.8% vs. 38.9%, p<0.0001) and median time to treatment failure (7.3 vs. 5.9 months, p=0.035). In subgroup analyses, PB improved the median overall survival of patients with pleural lesions or pulmonary lymphangiopathy (not reached vs. 18.9 months, p=0.037), and of patients with three or more metastatic sites without liver metastases, (48.0 vs. 27.3 months, p=0.015).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional chemotherapy, PB improved the overall response rate and time to treatment failure in patients with HER2^- advanced breast cancer and improved overall survival in some patient subgroups.

Cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatment approaches for early breast cancer: a retrospective matched cohort study from China

Background

Both breast-conserving surgery and breast reconstruction surgery are less popular in China, although they can improve patients’ quality of life. The main reason comes from the economy. There is currently no economic evaluation of different surgical treatment options for early breast cancer. Our study aims to assess the economic impact and long-term cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatments for early breast cancer. The surgical approaches are including mastectomy (MAST), breast-conserving therapy (BCT), and mastectomy with reconstruction (MAST+RECON).

Methods

Based on demographic data, disease-related information and other treatments, we applied propensity score matching (PSM) to perform 1: 1 matching among patients who underwent these three types of surgery in the tertiary academic medical center from 2011 to 2017 to obtain a balanced sample of covariates between groups. A Markov model was established. Clinical data and cost data were obtained from the medical records. Health utility values were derived from clinical investigations. Strategies were compared using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

After PSM, there were 205 cases in each group. In the matched data set, the distribution of covariates was fully balanced. The total cost of MAST, MAST+RECON and BCT was $37,392.84, $70,556.03 and $82,330.97, respectively. The quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) were 17.11, 18.40 and 20.20, respectively. Compared with MAST, MAST+RECON and BCT have an ICER of $25,707.90/QALY and $14,543.08/QALY, respectively. The ICER of BCT vs. MAST was less than the threshold of $27,931.04. The reliability and stability of the results were confirmed by Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

We believe that in the context of the limited resources in China, after comparing the three surgical approaches, BCT is the more cost-effective and preferred solution.

Current trends and opportunities in targeting p21 activated kinase-1(PAK1) for therapeutic management of breast cancers

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. Identifying reliable biomarkers and druggable molecular targets pose to be a significant quest in breast cancer research. p21-activated kinase 1 (PAK1) is a serine/threonine kinase that direct cell motility, cytoskeletal remodelling, and has been shown to function as a downstream regulator for various cancer signalling cascades that promote cell proliferation, apoptosis deregulation and hasten mitotic abnormalities, resulting in tumor formation and progression. The heterogeneity and acquired drug resistance are important factors that challenge the treatment of breast cancer. p21-activated kinase 1 signalling is crucial for activation of the Ras/RAF/MEK/ERK, PI3K/Akt/mTOR and Wnt signalling cascades which regulate cell survival, cell cycle progression, differentiation, and proliferation. A study involving proteogenomics analysis on breast cancer tissues showed the PAK1 as outlier kinase. In addition to this, few outlier molecules were identified specific to subtypes of breast cancer. A few substrates of PAK1 in breast cancer are already known. In this paper, we have discussed a similar approach called Kinase Interacting Substrate Screening (KISS) for the identification of novel oncogenic substrates of p21-activated kinase specific to subtypes of breast cancer. Such high throughput approaches are expected to accelerate the process of identifying novel drug targets and biomarkers.

Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Background:

The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on advanced TNBC from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed advanced TNBC. The clinical data were gathered from the IMpassion130 trial. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties.

Results:

Our results demonstrated that atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel augmented versus nab-paclitaxel therapy cost $104,278 and $149,465 and yielded an additional 0.371 and 0.762 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in in all patients with unknown PD-L1 status and subpopulation with PD-L1-positive, respectively, which led to an ICER of $281,448 and $196,073 per QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment guiding by PD-L1 expression testing resulted in an ICER of $183,508 per QALY gained. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel could maintain a trend of positive incremental net health benefits and >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY in more than half of subgroups with PD-L1-positive. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel treatment.

Conclusion:

The atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy based on nab-paclitaxel for the patients with PD-L1-positive advanced TNBC.