Use of targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical and economic impact in a Canadian real-life setting

Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: How Much Uncertainty Is in the Results?

Cost-effectiveness analyses of new cancer treatments in real-world settings (e.g., post-clinical trials) inform healthcare decision makers about their healthcare investments for patient populations. The results of these analyses are often, though not always, presented with statistical uncertainty. This paper identifies five ways to characterize statistical uncertainty: (1) a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); (2) a 95% CI for the incremental net benefit (INB); (3) an INB by willingness-to-pay (WTP) plot; (4) a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC); and (5) a cost-effectiveness scatterplot. It also explores their usage in 22 articles previously identified by a rapid review of real-world cost effectiveness of novel cancer treatments. Seventy-seven percent of these articles presented uncertainty results. The majority those papers (59%) used administrative data to inform their analyses while the remaining were conducted using models. Cost-effectiveness scatterplots were the most commonly used method (34.3%), with 40% indicating high levels of statistical uncertainty, suggesting the possibility of a qualitatively different result from the estimate given. Understanding the necessity for and the meaning of uncertainty in real-world cost-effectiveness analysis will strengthen knowledge translation efforts to improve patient outcomes in an efficient manner.

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma trials using combinations versus sunitinib as first-line treatment

Over the past 5 years, several new immunotherapy treatments have been tested for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials assessing combinations of different immunotherapies, or of an immunotherapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), have reported improved clinical outcomes compared with the standard of care - that is, treatments using TKIs alone. However, to understand the holistic impact of new treatments on patients, physicians must also consider effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on HRQoL are often treated as a secondary outcome in clinical trials, their collection and reporting are non-standardized and, therefore, difficult to compare and interpret. However, results from six clinical trials indicate that two immunotherapy treatments overwhelmingly outperform sunitinib in HRQoL measurements: nivolumab plus cabozantinib (CheckMate 9ER) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (IMmotion151). An additional two treatments generally outperform sunitinib: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 214) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (CLEAR). Of three studies that reported no difference from sunitinib, two suffered design flaws that might have obscured HRQoL benefits (JAVELIN Renal 101 and KEYNOTE-426). To ensure future HRQoL data are of the highest quality and comparable across trials, future studies should adopt best practices for the design, analysis and reporting of PROMs.

Rapid Review of Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Interventions in Canada

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CE Analysis) provides evidence about the incremental gains in patient outcomes costs from new treatments and interventions in cancer care. The utilization of "real-world" data allows these analyses to better reflect differences in costs and effects for actual patient populations with comorbidities and a range of ages as opposed to randomized controlled trials, which use a restricted population. This rapid review was done through PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2022. Relevant articles were summarized and data extracted to summarize changes in costs (in 2022 CAD) and effectiveness in cancer care once funded by the Canadian government payer system. We conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences between means and medians of costs, effects, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Twenty-two studies were selected for review. Of those, the majority performed a CE Analysis on cancer drugs. Real-world cancer drug studies had significantly higher costs and effects than non-drug therapies. Studies that utilized a model to project longer time-horizons saw significantly smaller ICER values for the treatments they examined. Further, differences in drug costs increased over time. This review highlights the importance of performing real-world CE Analysis on cancer treatments to better understand their costs and impacts on a general patient population.

Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence: Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration’s RWE Data Working Group

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8–11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration’s Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.

The Epidemiology of Lung Metastases

Introduction: Lung metastasis is usually associated with poor outcomes in cancer patients. This study was performed to characterize and analyze the population of patients with de novo (synchronous) lung metastases using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database.

Materials and Methods: Baseline characteristics of lung metastasis patients were obtained from SEER case listings. Incidence rates and counts of synchronous lung metastasis were also obtained using the SEER^*Stat software. Survival outcomes were analyzed using univariate and multivariable Cox regressions, controlling for confounders. An alpha threshold of 0.05 was used for statistical significance and p-values were subject to correction for multiple comparisons.

Results: The age-adjusted incidence rate of synchronous lung metastasis was 17.92 per 100,000 between 2010 and 2015. Synchronous lung metastases most commonly arose from primary lung cancers, colorectal cancers, kidney cancers, pancreatic cancers and breast cancers. During this time period, 4% of all cancer cases presented with synchronous lung metastasis. The percentage of patients presenting with synchronous lung metastasis ranged from 0.5% of all prostate cancers to 13% of all primary lung cancers. The percentage of all cancer cases presenting with synchronous lung metastasis increased over time. De novo metastatic patients with lung metastases had worse overall survival [hazard ratio = 1.22 (1.21–1.23), p < 0.001] compared to those with only extrapulmonary metastases, controlling for potential confounders.

Conclusions: Synchronous lung metastasis occurs frequently and is an independent predictors of poor patient outcomes. As treatment for lung metastases becomes more complicated, patients with synchronous lung metastasis represent a high-risk population.

Effects of early vs delayed progression on clinical and economic outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy: results from the IMPACT RCC claims data analysis

BACKGROUND: A key therapeutic goal of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment is delayed disease progression. The degree to which early therapeutic success affects downstream outcomes is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and economic impact of early vs delayed disease progression in patients with mRCC treated with first-line (1L) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) followed by second-line (2L) therapy in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database. METHODS: Adult patients newly diagnosed with mRCC who were treated with a TKI as 1L therapy and who progressed to 2L therapy from October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2018, were identified from the US VHA database. Patients were stratified by median time from initiation of 1L therapy to initiation of 2L therapy into early (median time or sooner)and delayed (longer than the median) progression cohorts. Clinical outcomes (time to 2L therapy discontinuation, time to third-line [3L] treatment initiation, and overall survival) were assessed descriptively, and health care resource utilization and costs were compared between patients in the early and those in the delayed progression cohorts. Survival analyses (Kaplan-Meier curves) were used to estimate descriptively the median time to discontinuation, time to next line of treatment, and time to death for each cohort. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for the influence of differences in cohort characteristics, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to descriptively assess the impact of predictive factors on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 289 patients were included in the analysis: 145 in the early progression cohort and 144 in the delayed progression cohort. Baseline characteristics were similar between the early and delayed progression cohorts. Median time from 1L therapy initiation to 2L therapy discontinuation was 7.9 months in the early progression cohort and 18.0 months in the delayed progression cohort, whereas time from 1L therapy initiation to 3L therapy initiation was 9.4 and 21.8 months, respectively; overall survival was 19.7 and 36.4 months, respectively. Descriptive analysis revealed generally lower risks for 2L therapy discontinuation (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.31-0.52), 3L therapy initiation (HR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.32-0.55), and death (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.33-0.64) for those with delayed progression. After adjustment for possible confounding factors, comparative analysis during the follow-up period showed that delayed progression was associated with a shorter median all-cause hospital length of stay (0.4 days vs 0.8 days for early progression; P = 0.0004), fewer pharmacy visits (3.57 vs 4.08 visits; P = 0.0266), and lower total health care costs ($10,342 vs $13,388; P = 0.0347) per patient per month. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, early progression after 1L therapy initiation is associated with generally worse clinical outcomes and statistically significantly greater health care resource utilization and costs than delayed progression. This finding highlights the importance of initiating therapy with an optimal 1L treatment regimen that has been proven to delay disease progression. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, and Pfizer Inc. EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were involved in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Liu and Bhanegaonkar are employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA. Kasturi was employed by EMD Serono Inc., an affiliate of Merck KGaA, at the time of this study. Kim and Krulewicz are employed by Pfizer Inc. Dieyi is an employee of STATinMED Research, which received consulting fees from EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc. Hutson has received grants from Pfizer Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Inc., and Eisai Co., Ltd., outside of this work. Data from this analysis were presented at the Virtual International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2020 conference, May 18-20, 2020; the virtual American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, May 29-31, 2020; and AMCP Nexus 2020 Virtual, October 20-23, 2020.

Randomized clinical trials and real life studies: Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients in oral target therapies for renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS.Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.

Carcinoma a cellule renali metastatico: evidenze real-world da un ampio database amministrativo italiano

Purpose:

To assess the healthcare resources’ consumption and integrated costs of patients with renal cancer and new metastasis (mRCC), in the perspective of the Italian National Health System (NHS).

Methods:

From the ReS database, through the administrative data record linkage, adults with a primary/secondary hospital (ordinary/daily admissions) diagnosis (ICD9-CM code) of renal cancer and lymph node and/or distant metastases in the same hospital discharge (index date) were selected in 2015. Metastases were defined new if they were absent in the 2 previous years. Patients were described in terms of gender, age (mean ± SD) and comorbidities of interest. The 2-year survival and annual pharmacological treatments, hospitalization, outpatient specialist services and costs were analysed.

Results:

Out of >6 million adults in the 2015 ReS database, 133 (2.1 × 100,000) were hospitalized with a diagnosis of RCC and metastasis. Patients with new metastases were 63.2% (1.4 × 100,000; 73.8% males; mean age 68 ± 13). Hypertension was the most common comorbidity (70.2% of mRCC patients). The 2-year survival of mRCC patients was 26.2%. During 1-year follow-up, at least a drug was prescribed to 88.1% of mRCC patients (on average € 12,095/patient), 91.7% were hospitalized (€ 8,897/patient) and 82.1% entrusted the outpatient specialist care (€ 1,075/patient). The mean overall expenditure for the NHS was € 22,067 per capita.

Conclusions:

This study shows the mRCC burden on the Italian real clinical practice and its economic impact in the perspective of the NHS. Real-world analyses prove to be useful to concretely estimate the overall healthcare responsibility on patients affected by mRCC.

Overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus: a report from the RENSUR3 registry

Background

Real‐world data describing outcomes of treatment among metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients are limited and heterogeneous.

Aim

RENSUR3 registry study assessed real‐world data on the use of therapies in mRCC and overall survival (OS) in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus.

Methods

Patients were included in the retrospective multicenter registry study. To be eligible, patients were required to have mRCC diagnosed from January 2015 to January 2016. Anonymized data were collected through an online registry. The outcomes of interest were patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and OS.

Results

1094 mRCC patients were identified. Mean age was 62.3 (SD, 11.2) years. Four hundred and forty‐four (41%) patients were 65 years and older. Primary tumor has not been removed in 503 (46%) patients. Subtype of RCC based on WHO classification (clear‐cell or other) has been reported in 402 (37%) patients. In total, 595 (54.4%) patients received systemic therapy for metastatic disease. 58% of elderly patients (≥65) were not treated compared to 37% of younger patients. Cytokines and targeted therapy were used in 298 (50.1%) and 297 (49.9%) of 595 treated patients, respectively. Median OS was 11.9 months (95% CI 10.9‐12.9). The 1‐ and 3‐year OS rates were 49.6% and 19.3%.

Conclusions

Half of patients received no systemic therapy or had only cytokines for mRCC in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, which doubtless negatively affected OS in this population. Novel therapies should be considered as life prolonging and a priority.

Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Immunotherapies Have Demonstrated Overall Survival Benefits While Targeted Therapies Have Not

Context

Current guidelines suggest several targeted therapies (TTs) and immunotherapies (ITs) in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Ideal sequencing of these treatments is unclear.

Objective

The primary objective was to evaluate the overall survival (OS) data of the treatments approved for mRCC. Secondary objectives included evaluating other signs of efficacy and adverse events.

Evidence acquisition

We reviewed the current Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for mRCC. Trials associated with approval were reviewed. We also included pre- and postapproval publications when appropriate.

Evidence synthesis

There is minimal evidence supporting OS benefit for the nine approved TTs. They result in adverse events and are a considerable economic burden. For these reasons, their future role in mRCC treatment should be re-evaluated, given the emergence of IT that have demonstrated OS benefits. Accumulating long-term survival data with high-dose interleukin-2 treatment suggests that this older treatment could still be considered for eligible patients. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising OS and durable responses; as such, the high cost of treatment might be justified. However, the available evidence does not suggest that adding TT to IT would increase efficacy over IT alone, but would add toxicity.

Conclusions

Trial data supporting OS benefit are much stronger for ITs than for TTs. Combining checkpoint inhibitors with TTs has not been shown to produce better OS than checkpoint inhibitors alone, while more adverse events are present. Granting drug approvals based on efficacy without demonstrated OS benefit should be revisited.

Patient summary

Approved treatments for metastatic kidney cancer include targeted and immune-based therapies. The former commonly produces temporary tumour shrinkage, but survival benefits are unclear. All approved immunotherapies have increased survival, and a proportion of patients appear cured.

Treatment patterns and health outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients treated with targeted systemic therapies in the UK

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with targeted systemic therapies have demonstrated favourable outcomes in randomised controlled trials, however real-world evidence is limited. Thus, this study aimed to determine the effectiveness of targeted systemic therapies for patients with mRCC in routine clinical practice in the UK.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, longitudinal study based on chart review of newly diagnosed adult mRCC patients treated at two UK hospitals from 2008 to 2015 was conducted. Targeted systemic therapies recommended for use in mRCC patients were evaluated across first to third lines of therapy (1LOT-3LOT). Important exclusions were treatment with cytokine therapy and within non-standard of care clinical trials. Primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); data were analysed descriptively and using Kaplan-Meyer analysis.

RESULTS

652 patients (65.3% male, 35.0% ≥70 years) were included. In 1LOT, 98.5% of patients received sunitinib or pazopanib. In 2LOT and 3LOT, 99.0 and 94.4% received axitinib or everolimus. Median OS was 12.9, 6.5 and 5.9 months at 1LOT, 2LOT and 3LOT respectively. Estimated OS at 1-year was 52.4% (95% CI: 48.6-56.4%) in 1LOT, 31.5% (25.2-39.5%) in 2LOT and 23.8% (10.1-55.9%) in 3LOT. Median OS from 1LOT in favourable, intermediate and poor MSKCC were 39.7, 15.8 and 6.1 months respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, treatment was consistent with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for mRCC patients. Although the study population favoured poorer prognosis patients, outcomes were more favourable than those for England at the same time. However, overall survival in this 'real-world' population remains poor and indicates significant unmet need for effective and safe treatment options to improve survival among mRCC patients.

Predictive Markers of First Line Pazopanib Treatment in Kidney Cancer

Real-world evidence from clinical practices is fundamental for understanding the efficacy and tolerability of medicinal products. Patients with renal cell cancer were studied to gain data not represented by analyses conducted on highly selected patients participating in clinical trials. Our goal was to retrospectively collect data from patients with advanced renal tumours treated with pazopanib (PZ) to investigate the efficacy, frequency of side effects, and searching for predictive markers. Eighty-one patients who had received PZ therapy as first-line treatment were retrospectively evaluated. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed as endpoints. Median PFS and OS were 11.8 months (95% CI: 8.8-22.4); and 30.2 months (95% CI: 20.3-41.7) respectively. Severe side effects were only encountered in 11 (14%) patients. The presence of liver metastasis shortened the median PFS (5.5 vs. 14.8 months, p = 0.003). Median PFS for patients with or without side effects was 25.6 vs. 7.3 months, respectively (p = 0.0001). Patients younger than 65 years had a median OS of 41.7 months vs. 25.2 months for those over 65 years of age (p = 0.008). According to our results absence of liver metastases, younger age (<65 years) and presence of side effects proved to be independent predictive markers of better PFS and OS.

Efficacy and Prognostic Factors of Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in an Arab Population

PURPOSE

Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been the mainstay first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We reviewed the efficacy of first-line therapy with sunitinib in patients with mRCC in an Arab population.

METHODS

Medical records of patients with mRCC treated at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia, during the period from 2007 to 2016, were reviewed. Demographic data, treatment received, response, and prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients who received sunitinib were identified. The median age was 60 years (range, 18 to 78 years), and 42 of the 55 patients were men (76.3%). International Metastatic RCC Diagnostic Consortium prognostic scores for favorable/intermediate/poor were 14.5%/43.6%/38.2%, respectively. The median performance status was 1, and the median Charlson comorbidity index score was 9. Thirty-seven patients (67.2%) had cytoreductive nephrectomy. Thirty-seven patients (67.2%) had clear cell histology. Twenty-two patients (40%) underwent dose reduction. Twenty-seven patients (49%) received second-line therapy, and seven patients (12.7%) received third-line therapy. Response rates were complete response in one patient (1.8%), partial response in 17 (30.9%), stable disease in 10 (18.1), and disease progression in 20 (36.3%). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 and 24.7 months, respectively. Univariate analysis showed statistically improved PFS for dose reduction (P = .015) and the development of hypothyroidism (P = .03). It also showed statistically improved OS for dose reduction (P = .035), hypothyroidism (P = .0002), and cytoreductive nephrectomy (P = .0052). Multivariate analysis showed statistically improved PFS for dose reduction (P = .01) and OS for development of hypothyroidism (P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Our data for sunitinib in mRCC show significantly lower PFS than expected. The absence of prognostic value of the International Metastatic RCC Diagnostic Consortium scoring system and pathologic subtype warrant further investigation and possible inclusion of genetic scoring in this ethnic group of patients.

Comparative Survival Associated With Use of Targeted vs Nontargeted Therapy in Medicare Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Targeted therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) have shown increased tolerability and survival advantages over older treatments in clinical trials, but understanding of real-world survival improvements is still emerging.

OBJECTIVE

To compare overall and RCC-specific survival associated with use of targeted vs nontargeted therapy for metastatic RCC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from 2000 to 2013 to examine patients with stage IV (distant) clear cell RCC at the time of diagnosis who received any targeted or nontargeted therapy. A 2-stage residual inclusion model was fitted to estimate the survival advantages of targeted treatments using an instrumental variable approach to account for both measured and unmeasured group differences. Data analyses were conducted from July 24, 2017, to April 4, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Targeted therapy (study group) or nontargeted therapy (control group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Overall survival and RCC-specific survival, defined as the interval between the date of first drug treatment and date of death or end of the observation period.

RESULTS

The final sample included 1015 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [8.1] years; 392 [39%] women); 374 (37%) received nontargeted therapy and 641 (63%) received targeted therapy. The targeted therapy group had a greater percentage of disabled patients (ie, those <65 years old who were eligible for Medicare because of disability) and older patients (ie, those ≥75 years old) and higher comorbidity index and disability scores compared with the nontargeted therapy group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed higher overall survival for targeted vs nontargeted therapy (log-rank test, χ21 = 5.79; P = .02); median survival was not statistically significantly different (8.7 months [95% CI, 7.3-10.2 months] vs 7.2 months [95% CI, 5.8-8.8 months]; P = .14). According to the instrumental variable analysis, the median overall survival advantage was 3.0 months (95% CI, 0.7-5.3 months), and overall survival improvements associated with targeted therapy vs nontargeted therapy were statistically significant: 8% at 1 year (44% [95% CI, 39%-50%] vs 36% [95% CI, 30%-42%]; P = .01), 7% at 2 years (25% [95% CI, 20%-30%] vs 18% [95% CI, 13%-23%]; P = .009), and 5% at 3 years (15% [95% CI, 11%-19%] vs 10% [95% CI, 6%-13%]; P = .01). Receipt of targeted therapy was associated with a lower hazard of death compared with nontargeted therapy (overall survival hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; RCC-specific survival hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62-0.96]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Targeted therapies were associated with modest survival advantages despite a treatment group with more medical complexity, likely reflecting appropriateness for an expanded population of patients. As advances in cancer treatment continue, rigorous methods that account for unobserved confounders will be needed to evaluate their real-world impact on outcomes.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective.

RESULTS

The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib.

CONCLUSION

When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.