Post hoc economic analysis of temozolomide versus dacarbazine in the treatment of advanced metastatic melanoma

The role of dacarbazine and temozolomide therapy after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in malignant melanoma patients: A case series and meta-analysis

Dacarbazine (DTIC) and its oral counterpart temozolomide (TMZ) have been the most used agents in advanced malignant melanoma (MM) patients and they are still used routinely. The preferred first line treatment, immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) might shape the tumor and the tumor microenvironment, possibly affecting the response to subsequent therapies. The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment effect of DTIC/TMZ in MM patients after CPI therapy in a consecutive patient cohort and through systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Thirty-five patients with advanced MM treated with DTIC/TMZ after previous CPI therapy in three Swedish regions between 2017 and 2021 were recognized and seven case series studies were identified through systematic database review. Pooled data from all 345 patients showed a median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) of 1.9 months and overall survival (OS) of 6.0 months. Three of these studies were included in a meta-analysis comparing DTIC/TMZ after CPI treatment, versus no previous immunotherapy, showing no statistically significant differences in rwPFS or OS but higher real-world response rate to chemotherapy for the prior-CPI treated group (Odds Ratio: 2.24; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.04-4.86). The current study supports consideration of DTIC/TMZ in later line of treatment in the immunotherapy era.

Quantifying the Value of Introducing an Oral Drug Delivery Option for Edaravone: A Review of Analyses Evaluating the Economic Impact of Oral versus Intravenous Formulations

Background

Drug formulation and route of administration can have an impact on not only patients’ quality of life and disease outcomes but also costs of care. It is essential for decision makers to use appropriate economic modeling methods to guide drug coverage policies and to support patients’ decision-making.

Purpose

To illustrate key cost considerations for decision makers in economic evaluation of innovative oral formulations as alternatives to intravenous medication.

Materials and Methods

A structured literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to examine methods used for quantifying the economic impact of introducing a new oral pharmaceutical formulation as an alternative to intravenous medication. To illustrate the methods described in this review, a cost-minimization analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of introducing an oral formulation of a medication originally developed as an intravenous treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Results

We identified 14 published evaluations of oral and intravenous formulations from 10 countries across a variety of disease areas. The identified studies used cost-effectiveness (n=10), cost-minimization (n=2), and cost-calculation (n=2) modeling approaches. All but one (13/14) reported outcomes from payers’ perspective, while societal perspectives were also incorporated in 3 of the reviewed evaluations. One study estimated costs from a public hospital’s perspective. Only a subset of the identified studies accounted for the effects of safety (n=6) or efficacy (n=8) differences on treatment costs when estimating the costs of a formulation choice. Many studies that omitted these aspects did not include rationales for their decisions.

Conclusion

We found significant design variations in published models that estimated the impact of an additional formulation option on the treatment costs to payers and the society. Models need to be accompanied with clear descriptions on rationales for their time horizons and assumptions on how different formulations may affect healthcare costs from the selected perspectives.

Cost Analysis of Adjuvant Whole-Brain Radiotherapy Treatment Versus No Whole-Brain Radiotherapy After Stereotactic Radiosurgery and/or Surgery Among Adults with One to Three Melanoma Brain Metastases: Results from a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare Australian health system costs at 12 months for adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) treatment after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and/or surgery versus observation among adults with one to three melanoma brain metastases. We hypothesized that treatment with adjuvant WBRT and subsequent healthcare would be more expensive than SRS/surgery alone.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted alongside a multicentre, randomized phase III trial. A bespoke cost questionnaire was used to measure healthcare use, including hospitalizations, specialist and primary care visits, imaging, and medicines over 12 months. Mean per-patient costs were calculated based on the quantity of resources used and unit costs, reported in Australian dollars ($AU), year 2018 values. Skewness of cost data was determined using normality tests and censor-adjusted costs reported using the Kaplan-Meier sample average method. The analysis of difference in mean costs at each 2-month time point and at 12 months was performed and checked using Kruskal-Wallis, generalized linear models with gamma distribution and log link, modified Park test, ordinary least squares, and non-parametric bootstrapping.

RESULTS

In total, 89 patients with similar characteristics at baseline were included in the cost analysis (n = 43 WBRT; n = 46 observation). Hospitalization cost was the main cost, ranging from 63 to 89% of total healthcare costs. The unadjusted 12-monthly cost for WBRT was $AU71,138 ± standard deviation 41,475 and for observation $AU69,848 ± 33,233; p = 0.7426. The censor-adjusted 12-monthly cost for WBRT was $AU90,277 ± 36,274 and $AU82,080 ± 34,411 for observation. There was no significant difference in 2-monthly costs between groups (p > 0.30 for all models).

CONCLUSIONS

Most costs were related to inpatient hospitalizations associated with disease recurrence. Adding WBRT after local SRS/surgery for patients with one to three melanoma brain metastases did not significantly increase health system costs during the first 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12607000512426, prospectively registered 14 September 2007.

Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Differing methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advanced melanoma to the Irish setting.

METHODS

CEAs of treatments for melanoma were identified by systematic review. Transferability to the Irish setting was assessed using the EUnetHTA transferability tool for Economic Evaluation. We present a narrative discussion comparing the differences in key parameter inputs and the likely impact of these differences on the model outcomes and the reimbursement recommendation. Transferability is considered within the context of the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold, using the net monetary benefit (NMB) framework.

RESULTS

No published CEAs (n = 15) aligned with the Irish reference case for CEA. Changes to key parameters were unlikely to change the conclusions of the CEA when the cost-effectiveness threshold was considered. Ten studies (19 pairwise comparisons) were compared with findings by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) using NMB. Without accounting for differences in the cost-effectiveness threshold, there was alignment between the study conclusions and NCPE recommendations in 73.7% cases. When the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold was applied in the estimation of NMB, there was agreement in 89.5% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Alignment in methodological requirements for CEA is important to facilitate joint health technology assessment (HTA) by regional collaborations in Europe. When parameter inputs are not exactly aligned, conclusions may still be comparable across jurisdictions. For international joint procurement initiatives, determining and implementing joint decision rules may be more important than trying to align rules regarding methodological and parameter inputs.

Economic Evaluation of Systemic Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Many high cost treatments for advanced melanoma have become available in recent years. National health technology assessment agencies have raised concerns regarding uncertainty in their clinical and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced melanoma and review model assumptions, outcomes, and quality as preparation for a health technology assessment.

METHODS

A search of Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Database was conducted. Only studies using decision-analytic models were included. Two authors independently completed full-text review and data extraction.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified. There were major differences in the structural assumptions underpinning the models. There was general agreement in study conclusions, although the predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment varied. BRAF monotherapy (vemurafenib, dabrafenib) or BRAF/MEK combination therapy (BRAF monotherapy with cobimetinib or trametinib) has not been shown to be cost-effective in any jurisdiction. PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) are consistently found to be cost-effective compared with ipilimumab, although their cost-effectiveness compared with chemotherapy is not established. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab is unlikely to be cost-effective in any setting. One study including all agents found that none of the new treatments were cost-effective relative to chemotherapy. Publication of the study in a health economics journal is associated with better reporting of and higher-quality assessment than those published in clinical journals.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in model structures and assumptions, the conclusions of most included studies were consistent. Health technology assessment has a key role in maximizing value from high-cost innovative treatments. Consideration should be given to divestment from BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab in favor of reimbursement of PD-1 inhibitors.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.

Cost-Effectiveness of Drug Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Until recently, advanced melanoma (unresectable and metastatic) has had a poor prognosis and has been treated with chemotherapy. The introduction of new treatments (BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy) has improved overall survival and progression-free survival of some patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review the published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for advanced melanoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, without date or language restrictions, in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence databases and the Health Technology Assessment journal. Internet searches were also made to identify possible grey literature. Main study characteristics, methods and outcomes were extracted and critically assessed. The quality of health economic studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Economic Evaluation in Health Care checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified nine full-text pharmacoeconomic analyses of advanced melanoma treatments. According to the economic analyses published in the articles, the new treatments have been shown to be more effective (with more life-years and quality-adjusted life-years) than chemotherapy, although generally the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was above the commonly accepted threshold. Because of the variability of the available analyses comparing the new treatments, we cannot determine which treatment is the most cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

From the available data, it cannot be concluded that the new drugs (BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy) are cost effective compared with chemotherapy or which is the most cost-effective new treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of therapies for melanoma

Melanoma presents an important burden worldwide. Until recently, the prognosis for unresectable and metastatic melanoma was poor, with 10% of metastatic melanoma patients surviving for 2 years. The introduction of newer therapies including ipilimumab, vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib improved progression-free survival, with additional benefits anticipated from the forthcoming class of programmed cell death 1 inhibitors. Cost of therapy and resulting cost-effectiveness is an important factor in determining patient access to specific treatments. The objective of this study was to review the published evidence regarding cost-effectiveness of melanoma therapies and provide an overview of the relative cost-effectiveness of available therapies by disease stage. For earlier-stage disease, IFN-α has been found to be cost-effective, although its clinical benefits have not been well established. For unresectable and metastatic melanoma, newer therapies provide benefits over standard-of-care chemotherapy, but comprehensive analyses will need to be conducted to determine the most cost-effective therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma

Purpose

Genetically-targeted therapies are both promising and costly advances in the field of oncology. Several treatments for metastatic melanoma with a mutation in the BRAF gene have been approved. They extend life but are more expensive than the previous standard of care (dacarbazine). Vemurafenib, the first drug in this class, costs $13,000 per month ($207,000 for a patient with median survival). Patients failing vemurafenib are often given ipilimumab, an immunomodulator, at $150,000 per course. Assessment of cost-effectiveness is a valuable tool to help navigate the transition toward targeted cancer therapy.

Methods

We performed a cost-utility analysis to compare three strategies for patients with BRAF+ metastatic melanoma using a deterministic expected-value decision tree model to calculate the present value of lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each strategy. We performed sensitivity analyses on all variables.

Results

In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for vemurafenib compared with dacarbazine was $353,993 per QALY gained (0.42 QALYs added, $156,831 added). The ICER for vemurafenib followed by ipilimumab compared with vemurafenib alone was $158,139. In sensitivity analysis, treatment cost had the largest influence on results: the ICER for vemurafenib versus dacarbazine dropped to $100,000 per QALY gained with a treatment cost of $3600 per month.

Conclusion

The cost per QALY gained for treatment of BRAF+ metastatic melanoma with vemurafenib alone or in combination exceeds widely-cited thresholds for cost-effectiveness. These strategies may become cost-effective with lower drug prices or confirmation of a durable response without continued treatment.

Treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with metastatic melanoma treated in community practice

BACKGROUND

The primary systemic treatments for advanced melanoma have been chemotherapy and immunotherapy. New agents are currently in development.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to characterize treatment patterns and outcomes across several lines of therapy and to illustrate the treatment landscape prior to the approval of new therapies. The study endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and best overall response within line of therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart analysis was conducted at 11 community oncology practices in the USA. Data for patients aged ≥18 years and diagnosed with stage IV and/or metastatic melanoma during 2006-2010 were analyzed. Primary endpoints were PFS within line of therapy and OS from the diagnosis of metastasis.

RESULTS

Data on a total of 202 patients were collected. The sample was mostly male (60%) and Caucasian (88%), with a mean age of 61.3 years. Of the 202 patients, 56 (28%) never received any systemic therapy. In the remaining 146 patients, systemic therapies included temozolomide-based regimens (n = 68), platinum-based regimens without temozolomide (n = 16), other regimens (n = 23), and research regimens (n = 39). Of the 146 patients who received systemic therapy, not all did so immediately after the diagnosis of metastasis: 102 (51%) patients did so shortly after diagnosis and before first disease progression, and 44 (22%) did so after first disease progression. Response rates were very low (≤5%) and did not differ across treatment groups. Progressive disease was the most frequent best overall response category identified, with rates of 83, 78, and 89% in the first to third lines of treatment, respectively. In 146 patients receiving first-line systemic therapy, median PFS was 3.25 months. Median OS in the entire sample was 7.66 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provided little evidence for any beneficial effects of the treatments available in the timeframe referred to in this study. Few patients (≤5%) responded to treatment, PFS among treated patients was short (3.25 months in first-line treatments, less in later lines), and there was no evidence of a differential effect of treatment regimens on PFS. There was no evidence of shorter survival in patients who never received systemic therapy. The high proportion of patients who did not receive any systemic therapy highlights the lack of effective therapies and underscores the unmet medical need in this patient population.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Payments for Oral Oncolytics: Results From a 2009 US Claims Data Analysis

PURPOSE

Oral oncolytics are an increasingly important treatment option for cancer. These agents often fall within the pharmacy benefit, with the potential for increased out-of-pocket (OOP) cost burden for patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient OOP payments for oral oncolytic therapies in US managed care plans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients age ≥ 18 years who received one of 21 oral oncolytics were identified in 2009 US claims; the first oral therapy was the index therapy. OOP payments were calculated as the allowed amount (dollar amount a health plan allows for a therapy, including member liability) minus the paid amount (dollar amount paid by a health plan). Patient characteristics were provided, and per-claim OOP payments were evaluated for each of the 21 therapies in aggregate and stratified by payer type and index therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 6,094 patients who received at least one oral oncolytic therapy were identified. Mean age was 53 years; 54% were women; 77% had a commercial payer; prevalent cancer diagnoses included breast, colorectal, glioblastoma, and lung. Mean OOP payments were highest for dasatinib ($527; median, $36) and lowest for cyclophosphamide ($15; median, $10). Medicare Risk patients had higher mean OOP payments for most therapies compared with commercial, Medicaid, and self-insured patients.

CONCLUSION

Among 21 oral oncolytics, average OOP cost ranged from $15 to > $500. These results confirm previous findings showing OOP payments differing widely among oral oncolytic options. As cost for therapy becomes a greater part of treatment decisions, an understanding of patient OOP cost will be critical in informing choices.

Advanced cutaneous malignant melanoma: a systematic review of economic and quality-of-life studies

OBJECTIVE

Metastatic melanoma (MM), a major concern for health-care providers, is increasing. We systematically reviewed published articles describing the impact of interventions (drugs and screening) on quality of life (QoL) in patients with MM, and articles that measured QoL in MM.

METHODS

We searched secondary databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, and DARE from inception to 2006 using MESH terms "melanoma" and "metastases." Economic articles were subject to established quality assessment procedures.

RESULTS

We found 13 QoL and five economic studies (three cost-effectiveness, two cost-utility; average quality = 83% +/- 7%). No strong evidence was found in this review for cost-effectiveness of interferons in Canada (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $55,090/quality-adjusted life-year) or temozolomide in the United States (ICER = $36,990/Life-year gained based on nonsignificant efficacy differences). Melanoma screening was not cost-effective in the United States ($150,000-931,000/life-saved) or Germany (no survival benefit). From the 13 QoL studies,eight measured baseline QoL; six studied the same population, generating similar results using different approaches/outcomes. Tools used included GLQ-8, QLQ-C30, QLQ-36, QWB-SA, and SF-36. Baseline scores QoL scores ranged from 0.60 to 0.69. Another five studies (N = 959 patients) were randomized trials analyzing QoL in patients treated with dacarbazine alone, dacarbazine +/- interferon, dacarbazine + fotemustine, interleukin +/- histamine, and temozolomide. Little difference was found in QoL scores between drugs or between baseline and end point.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness has not been widely demonstrated for treatment of MM. Only two studies with unimpressive results exist for treatments. Screening was not cost-effective in the United States or Germany. Generally, no significant improvements in QoL were found for any alternative for treating MM. A need exists for effective treatments that improve duration and QoL.

Cost of temozolomide therapy and global care for recurrent malignant gliomas followed until death

Effectiveness and costs of care and treatment of recurrent malignant gliomas are largely unknown. In this study, 49 patients (32 males, 17 females; mean age, 49; age range, 23-79) were treated with temozolomide (TMZ) for recurrent or progressive malignant gliomas after standard radiation therapy. Cost assessment (payer's perspective) singled out treatment for first recurrence and all costs of care until death. We computed personnel costs as wages; drugs, imaging, and laboratory tests as prices; and hospitalizations as day rates. Patients were administered a median of five TMZ cycles at recurrence. Drug acquisition costs amounted to euro 2206 per cycle (76% of total costs). Seven patients showed no second recurrence (two are still alive), 16 received no further chemotherapy and died after 3.9 months, and 26 received second-line chemotherapy. After the second progression, median survival was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval, 1.8-6.1). Overall monthly costs of care varied between euro 2450 and euro 3242 among the different groups, and median cost-effectiveness and cost utility ranged from euro 28,817 to euro 38,450 and from euro 41,167 to euro 53,369 per life of year and per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. We conclude that despite high TMZ drug acquisition costs, care of recurrent malignant gliomas is comparable to other accepted therapies.

Can we afford to add chemotherapy to radiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme? Cost-identification analysis of concomitant and adjuvant treatment with temozolomide until patient death

BACKGROUND

Adding temozolomide (TMZ) to standard radiotherapy as a first-line therapy for glioma may increase costs to a disproportionate degree compared with the resulting survival benefits.

METHODS

Forty-six consecutive patients (28 males and 18 females; median age, 52 years; age range, 24-70 years) received concomitant TMZ with radiotherapy for 6 weeks followed by adjuvant TMZ for 6 cycles, and they were followed until disease recurrence and then until death. The authors assessed the costs associated with the four phases of treatment from a hospital-centered perspective.

RESULTS

Treatment was discontinued early in 3 patients, 9 patients, and 15 patients during concomitant TMZ, before adjuvant TMZ, and during adjuvant TMZ, respectively. Karnofsky index values varied between 85% (at the beginning of treatment) and 76% (at the end of treatment). The nature of care after disease recurrence was diverse. Overall survival ranged from 1.4 months to 64.3 months (median, 15.8 months) and was better if surgical debulking could be carried out before treatment. Global costs amounted to Euros 39,092 +/- Euros 21,948 (concomitant TMZ, Euros 14,539 +/- Euros 4998; adjuvant TMZ, Euros 13,651 +/- Euros 4320; follow-up, Euros 6363 +/- Euros 6917; and recurrence, Euros 12,344 +/- Euros 18,327), with 53% of these costs being related to the acquisition of TMZ; this represented an eightfold increase in cost compared with radiotherapy alone.

CONCLUSIONS

TMZ may be an effective but costly adjuvant outpatient therapy for patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Definite cost-effectiveness/utility must be assessed in a randomized Phase III trial.

Temozolomide and interferon-alpha in metastatic melanoma: a phase II study of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup

Temozolomide (TMZ) is a new oral alkylating agent which has proven to be as active as dacarbazine (DTIC) in the treatment of melanoma, but with a lower toxicity. A multicentric phase II trial was conducted in an out-patient setting to determine the therapeutic activity and safety of TMZ in combination with interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha). From June 2000 to July 2001, 41 patients were recruited to receive TMZ 200 mg/m orally on days 1-5 every 28 days and with 5 MU IFN-alpha subcutaneously three times a week, continuously for eight cycles or until disease progression occurred. Of the 40 treated patients, two complete responses (5%) and three partial responses (7.5%) were observed, with a median duration of 4 months (range, 1.5-13.5 months). Thirteen patients (32.5%) had stable disease for a median of 2.5 months. Time to progression was 2.6 months and the median overall survival was 11.8 months. Nine patients (22.5%) developed brain metastases. The grade 4 toxicity observed in seven patients was of a transient haematological nature. This combination therapy is well tolerated but does not appear to increase the response rate or overall survival with respect to TMZ alone or to chemotherapeutic regimens. Further and more complex associations of these two drugs could be investigated in specific subsets of patients, in particular to evaluate its real efficacy in preventing brain metastases.

Re-evaluating the role of dacarbazine in metastatic melanoma: what have we learned in 30 years?

Since dacarbazine was approved for treating metastatic melanoma in the 1970s, numerous studies have evaluated whether different schedules and dacarbazine-based combinations improve clinical outcomes. This evidence-based review shows that combining dacarbazine with other drugs having single-agent activity and/or hormonal or immunotherapeutic compounds fails to provide clinically meaningful improvements in survival, and may increase toxicity. In patients with metastatic melanoma, dacarbazine was previously administered in cycles of multiple consecutive daily infusions per cycle. The introduction of potent antiemetics, together with concerns relating to patient comfort and clinic utilisation time, has enabled regimens involving single-dose dacarbazine, administered at the same total dose per cycle. These appear to be as effective as multiple-dose schedules, are well tolerated, and are more straightforward to administer. Single-administration dacarbazine (850-1000 mg/m2), once every 3 weeks, is currently the standard reference therapy in patients with advanced melanoma. New effective therapies are urgently needed for this treatment-refractory disease.

Economic analysis of the TAX 317 trial: docetaxel versus best supportive care as second-line therapy of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of second-line docetaxel compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the TAX 317 trial, a randomized clinical trial of second-line chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective CE analysis of the TAX 317 trial was undertaken, evaluating direct medical costs of therapy from the viewpoint of Canada's public health care system. Costs were derived in 1999 Canadian dollars, and resource use was determined through prospective trial data.

RESULTS

The incremental survival benefit in the docetaxel arm over BSC was 2 months (P =.047). The CE of docetaxel was $57,749 per year of life gained. For patients treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), the CE was $31,776 per year of life gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, CE estimates were most sensitive to changes in survival, ranging from $18,374 to $117,434 with 20% variation in survival at the recommended dose. The largest cost center in both arms was hospitalization, followed by the cost of drugs, investigations, radiotherapy, and community care. BSC patients had fewer hospitalizations than patients in the chemotherapy arm and were more often palliated at home.

CONCLUSION

Although the decision to treat should not be based on economic considerations alone, our CE estimate of $31,776 per year of life gained (at the currently recommended dose of docetaxel) is within an acceptable range of health care expenditures, and the total costs of therapy are similar to those of second-line palliative chemotherapy for other solid tumors.