A quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis comparing lapatinib plus capecitabine compared to capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer (MBC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1026-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Sherrill ◽  
A. Allshouse ◽  
M. Amonkar ◽  
S. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Health States ◽  
Significant Difference

1026 Background: Data for this analysis is from a Phase III randomized study that was stopped early by the IDMC since a planned interim analysis demonstrated the primary endpoint had been achieved i.e. longer time to disease progression for patients taking lapatinib plus capecitabine (L+C) versus capecitabine (C) alone. The study included women with refractory advanced or ErbB2+ MBC who had received prior therapy which included anthracyclines, taxanes and trastumuzab. The Q-TWiST method was used to compare the trade-off between toxicities and delayed progression. Methods: The area under overall survival curves for each treatment group was partitioned into three health states: toxicity (TOX), time without toxicity or disease progression (TWiST), and the period until death or end of follow-up following disease progression (REL). TOX is time spent with grade ¾ adverse events (AEs) during progression-free survival (PFS) time. TWiST is the remaining time prior to progression in which no serious AEs were experienced. The utility-weighted sum of the mean health state durations was derived and treatment comparisons of Q-TWiST were made at varying combinations of the utility weights using a threshold utility analysis. Results: The ITT population included 399 subjects ages 26–83 [L+C group N=198, C group N=201]. Overall median survival was 67 weeks based on data through 3APR2006. There was not a significant difference between groups in mean duration of serious AEs prior to progression. (L+C 1.7 weeks, C 1.5 weeks). Using utility weights of 0.5 for both TOX and REL, i.e. counting 2 days of TOX or REL as 1 day of TWiST, resulted in a 7-week difference in quality-adjusted survival favoring L+C (p = 0.0013). The Q-TWiST difference was significant across an entire matrix of possible utility weights. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses including all AEs. An observed-utility analysis based on EQ-5D scores is in progress. Conclusions: The longer time to disease progression with L+C versus C was achieved without increased time with serious AEs, resulting in more quality-adjusted survival for patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Q-TWiST analysis of tivozanib (T) versus sorafenib (S) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the TIVO-3 study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 298-298
Author(s):  
Michael Szarek ◽  
Michael N. Needle ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
David F. McDermott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Health States ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Similar Survival ◽  
Mean Differences

298 Background: In the randomized phase III study TIVO-3, the VEGFR-TKI tivozanib (TIVO) increased progression-free survival with better tolerability but no difference in overall survival (OS) relative to sorafenib (SORA) as third- or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic RCC. These results provide motivation to apply quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease and toxicity (Q-TWiST) methods to quantify the net health benefits of TIVO, in the presence of similar survival, when compared to SORA. Methods: In application of Q-TWiST, patient-level OS was subdivided into three mutually exclusive states: time with toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms and toxicity (TWiST), and time after progression/relapse (REL). Mean Q-TWiST was calculated by applying utility coefficients of 0.5, 1.0, and 0.5 to the restricted mean (max 36 months follow-up) health states of TOX, TWiST, and REL, respectively; 95% CIs for the means and mean differences were estimated by bootstrap distributions. Relative Q-TWiST gain was defined as the mean absolute Q-TWiST difference divided by the SORA mean OS. Results: Mean TWiST was significantly longer for TIVO than for SORA (10.30 months v.5.35 months; Table). Mean REL time was significantly shorter for TIVO, with no difference in mean TOX time. Mean Q-TWiST was 15.04 and 12.78 months for TIVO and SORA, respectively, a statistically significant difference (p=0.0493). The relative gain for TIVO was 11.2%. Clinical trial information: NCT02627963 . Values in table are mean (95% CI) in months or p-value for difference in treatment group means. Conclusions: The difference in Q-TWiST in TIVO-3 was primarily driven by benefits of TIVO in TWiST, partially offset by superiority of SORA in REL time. As a third- or fourth-line treatment for RCC, TIVO significantly increased Q-TWiST relative to SORA, primarily through an increase in TWiST, which is generally considered to be the state with highest utility to patients. Consequently, Q-TWiST may be considered an alternative patient-centered measure of benefit of TIVO in these settings. [Table: see text]

Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus paclitaxel plus epirubicin as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer: Efficacy and safety results of a randomized, phase III trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1087-1087
Author(s):  
Zhongsheng Tong ◽  
Shufen Li ◽  
Yehui Shi ◽  
Xu Wang ◽  
Chen Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference

1087 Background: Paclitaxel/carboplatin combinations are highly active in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We conducted a randomized, phase III, non-inferiority trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin (TP) with paclitaxel/epirubicin (TE) as first-line therapy for MBC. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Secondary endpoints included response rate, overall survival, tolerability, and quality of life (QoL). Methods: From June 2009 to January 2015, 231 patients were randomly assigned, 115 of whom were randomized to TP and 116 to TE. Baseline characteristics were relatively well-balanced in the two treatments. Results: After a median follow-up of 29 months, no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in objective response rate (ORR) (38.3% vs. 39.7%, respectively). Both the progression-free survival (p=0.158) and overall survival (p=0.369) were very similar between the two treatments. Both regimens were well tolerated. The main toxicities were myelosuppression, gastrointestinal reactions, and alopecia. TP showed higher grades 3–4 alopecia and higher nausea (p<0.05). TE showed higher incidence of myelosuppression than TP (p<0.05) (Table). Those patients whose epirubicin cumulative dose was more than 1000 mg/m2 did not suffer worse cardiotoxicity. Conclusions: Our study suggests that TP arm is an effective therapeutic alternative for patients with MBC, especially in those previously exposed to epirubicin in the adjuvant setting. TP has some advantages, such as less cost and less side effects (myelosuppression and fatigue). Clinical trial information: NCT02207361. [Table: see text]

Is RECIST-defined progression free-survival a meaningful endpoint in the era of immunotherapy?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 488-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sukhvinder Johal ◽  
Irene Santi ◽  
Justin Doan ◽  
Saby George
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Tumor Regression ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Apparent Lack ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Treatment Beyond Progression ◽  
Significant Difference

488 Background: Progression-free survival (PFS) is often used as a primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials as a surrogate for overall survival. Traditionally, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) have defined disease progression as a significant increase in the size of tumor lesions and the development of new lesions. However, some patients starting immunotherapy have shown initial increased size of tumor lesions followed by tumor regression, due to the unique mechanism of action of immunotherapies. This initial “pseudo-progression” could be classified inaccurately as disease progression, as evidenced by benefit from the treatment beyond progression approach ( JAMA Oncol 2016). The phase III CheckMate 025 trial of nivolumab versus everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma allowed treatment beyond progression if there was investigator-assessed clinical benefit and tolerability. The purpose of our study was to test if treatment duration for an immunotherapy was different from RECIST-defined PFS, and as such, could potentially explain the apparent lack of correlation between RECIST progression and overall survival shown in CheckMate 025. Methods: Using 1-year data from CheckMate 025, Kaplan–Meier methodology was used to estimate the median duration of PFS and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD). Stratified log-rank test was used to assess the difference in treatments. Results: For all patients, the median PFS with nivolumab was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.7–5.4 months) and median TTD was 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.6–7.7 months). For everolimus, the median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 3.7–5.5 months) and median TTD was 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.7–4.6 months). Conclusions: Patients in CheckMate 025 had significantly longer survival with nivolumab than with everolimus, but with similar PFS. Our analysis demonstrated that while PFS was similar to TTD with everolimus, there was a significant difference between the 2 measures for nivolumab, suggesting that RECIST-defined PFS may not be the proper endpoint to define progression for immunotherapies. Further evaluation of the association of TTD and other immune-related progression endpoints with overall survival is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01668784.

Results of a phase III randomized controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of atrasentan in men with nonmetastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5018-5018 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Nelson ◽  
J. L. Chin ◽  
W. Love ◽  
C. Schulman ◽  
D. Sleep ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Nasal Congestion ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Bone Alkaline Phosphatase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hormone Refractory ◽  
To Receive

5018 Introduction: Atrasentan is a potent oral, selective endothelin A receptor antagonist with biological activity in patients with HRPC. This randomized phase III trial of atrasentan vs placebo was conducted in 941 men with nonmetastatic HRPC whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was rising despite adequate androgen suppression. Methods: 467 patients were randomized to receive atrasentan 10 mg and 474 patients were randomized to receive placebo daily. Primary efficacy endpoints were time to disease progression (TTP) and progression-free survival, with progression defined as the onset of metastases. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, time to PSA progression, change from baseline in bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP), and PSA doubling time (PSADT). Results: In the intent-to-treat population, median TTP was 764 days with atrasentan and 671 days with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.915; G1,1 P=0.288). More placebo- treated patients (267, 56.3%) than atrasentan-treated patients (227, 48.6%) experienced disease progression. Overall, 278 patients (29.5%) discontinued before reaching a protocol-defined endpoint (155, 40.8% US vs 123, 21.6% non-US). More placebo-treated patients (210, 44.3%) than atrasentan-treated patients (169, 36.2%) experienced new skeletal lesions. Median survival was 1,477 days for the atrasentan group and 1,403 days for the placebo group (HR, 0.909; G1,1 P=0.176). Mean change from baseline to final BAP was -1.51 IU/L with atrasentan compared with +2.20 IU/L with placebo (P<0.001). PSADT was lengthened with atrasentan relative to placebo (P<0.031). The incidence of peripheral edema, nasal congestion, headache, dyspnea, anemia, and heart failure was significantly greater in the atrasentan group (P<0.05). Most of these events were mild and nonserious and did not result in study discontinuation. Conclusions: Data from this study did not show a statistically significant difference in time to progression between atrasentan and placebo. However, the high discontinuation rate, especially among US patients, may have compromised the ability of the study to accurately determine the treatment effect of atrasentan in this population. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The economic assessment of eribulin compared to treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in Australia.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17552-e17552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trefor Jones ◽  
W. Robert Simons
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Logistic Function ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Life Years

e17552 Background: The Eisai Metastatic Breast Cancer Study Assessing Physician’s Choice Versus E7389 (EMBRACE) established clinical benefits. This study evaluates its translation into comparative economic value. Methods: Because of superior survival benefits and a non-inferior safety profile, we use a cost-effectiveness analysis. Costs include medication and administration costs, cost of toxicity management, and indirect cost. The primary endpoint is the ratio of incremental means of costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Partitioned survival analyses were evaluated using a log-logistic function for overall survival, progression free survival, response duration, and toxicity time. Health state utilities or quality weights are applied to each component and aggregated. Sensitivity analyses assessed the influence of variability in a number of parameters. Results: Overall survival based on the log-logistic extrapolation was 686 days in the eribulin group compared to 550 days in the TPC group for a difference of 136 days. Mean time without progressive disease was 214 days and 160 days, respectively, for a difference of 59 days. Time spent with Grade 3 and 4 toxicity were 3.62 and 2.25 days in the eribulin group versus 2.25 and 0.98 days in the TPC group. Response times were 15.62 and 9.64 days, 5.98 days longer in the eribulin group. After weight components of overall survival with corresponding utilities and converting to years, the QALY were 1.166 in the eribulin group compared to 0.926 in the TPC group for a mean incremental improvement of 0.24 years. Mean treatment costs were $14,302.80 AUD and $1,672.02 AUD for a difference of $12,630.78 AUD. Total incremental cost is $13,794.35 AUD. The ICER with and without discounting is $48,134.29 AUD and $45,770.97 AUD, respectively. Survival time and drug cost were the most influential variables on the ICER. Conclusions: At a threshold of $50,000 AUD per QALY, eribulin is good value at $48,134 AUD per QALY. Clinical trial information: NCT00388726.

Quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) of lenvatinib plus everolimus versus everolimus monotherapy in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5067-5067
Author(s):  
Chung-Han Lee ◽  
Yin Wan ◽  
Alan D. Smith ◽  
RAN Xie ◽  
Robert J. Motzer
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Health States ◽  
Relative Gain ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Mean Time

5067 Background: In the primary analysis of Study 205 phase II trial (NCT01136733), lenvatinib+everolimus (vs everolimus) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (median PFS; 14.6 vs 5.5 months, HR = 0.40, 95% CI [0.24, 0.68]) in advanced RCC patients who received one prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Overall treatment differences were evaluated in a post hoc analysis using a quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) methodology. Methods: Patients’ survival time was partitioned into three mutually exclusive health states: time spent with grade 3/4 toxicity (TOX), time prior to disease progression and without grade 3/4 toxicity (TWiST) and time post disease progression (REL). Mean time spent in each state was weighted by a health-state utility associated with that state and summed to calculate the Q-TWiST. Non-parametric bootstrapping method was used to generate 95% CI, which evaluates the between-treatment differences. At base case, utility for TWiST, TOX and REL were assigned as 1.0, 0.5 and 0.5, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was used, applying utilities across the range of 0 (similar to death) to 1.0 (perfect health). A relative gain in Q-TWiST of ≥10% and ≥15% has been established in previous literature as clinically important and clearly clinically important, respectively. Results: Patients receiving lenvatinib+everolimus (n = 51) vs everolimus (n = 50) had significantly longer mean time in TWiST (10.9 vs 6.4 months; difference 4.5 [95% CI: 1.4, 7.8]) and numerically longer in TOX (1.9 vs 0.7 months; difference 1.2 [95% CI: -0.3, 3.1]) but shorter in REL (5.8 vs 8.5 months; difference -2.8 [95% CI: -6.2, 0.6]). At base case, lenvatinib+everolimus patients had a significant mean Q-TWiST gain of 3.7 months (14.7 vs 11.0; 95% CI of difference [1.3, 6.3]), with a relative gain of 24% vs everolimus. In a sensitivity analysis using alternative utility values for TWiST (varied from 0.55 - 0.9) with utility of TOX and REL both set as 0.5, absolute mean Q-TWiST gain ranged from 1.7 to 3.3 months, with a relative gain ranging from 11.0% to 21.2% (all significant). With TWiST utility set as 1.0 and utility of TOX and REL varying from 0 to 1.0, Q-TWiST gain ranged from 1.7 to 5.8 months (mostly significant and became non-significant as the REL utility gets closer to 1.0 and TOX utility gets closer to 0). Conclusions: Within Study 205, lenvatinib+everolimus resulted in a statistically significant and clinically important gain in Q-TWiST vs everolimus alone. Clinical trial information: NCT01136733 .

Phase III Study of N,N-Diethyl-2-[4-(Phenylmethyl) Phenoxy]Ethanamine (BMS-217380-01) Combined With Doxorubicin Versus Doxorubicin Alone in Metastatic/Recurrent Breast Cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Reyno ◽  
Lesley Seymour ◽  
Dongsheng Tu ◽  
Susan Dent ◽  
Karen Gelmon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Breast Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Breast Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Recurrent Breast

Purpose N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine (DPPE; tesmilifene) is a novel agent that augments chemotherapy cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. A phase II trial combining DPPE and doxorubicin (DOX) in metastatic breast carcinoma showed increased response over that expected with DOX. We report a phase III trial comparing DOX with DPPE plus DOX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer. Patients and Methods Anthracycline-naive women with measurable metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive, every 21 days, either DOX 60 mg/m2 intravenously or DOX during the last 20 minutes of an 80-minute infusion of DPPE (5.3 mg/kg), in both cases to cumulative DOX doses of 450 mg/m2. Patients receiving DPPE were aggressively premedicated to ameliorate toxicity. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and response duration (RD), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and overall survival (OS). Results A planned interim analysis failed to detect an RR difference more than 5%. The study was closed to additional accrual and all DPPE was discontinued. The final analysis was conducted as planned after 256 progression events (median follow-up, 20.5 months). There was no significant difference in RR, RD, or PFS between arms. DPPE plus DOX was statistically superior to DOX in OS (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P = .021). DPPE plus DOX was associated with more gastrointestinal and CNS toxicity. No consistent influence on QOL was detected. Conclusion This study demonstrated no advantage in RR, RD, or PFS but significantly superior OS for DPPE plus DOX. Additional studies of DPPE are warranted.

Topotecan Compared With No Therapy After Response to Surgery and Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Patients With Ovarian Cancer: Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO-1) Randomized Study

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (13) ◽  
pp. 2635-2642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabino De Placido ◽  
Giovanni Scambia ◽  
Giovanni Di Vagno ◽  
Emanuele Naglieri ◽  
Alessandra Vernaglia Lombardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Advanced Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose Topotecan is an active second-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. Its efficacy as consolidation treatment after first-line standard chemotherapy is unknown. Patients and Methods To investigate whether topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 on days 1 through 5, four cycles, every 3 weeks) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) for patients responding to standard carboplatin (area under the curve 5) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 administered as a 3-hour infusion in six cycles; CP), a multicenter phase III study was performed with an 80% power to detect a 50% prolongation of median PFS. Patients were registered at diagnosis and randomized after the end of CP. Results Two hundred seventy-three patients were randomly assigned (topotecan, n = 137; observation, n = 136), with a median age of 56 years. Stage at diagnosis was advanced in three fourths of patients (stage III in 65% of patients; stage IV in 10%); after primary surgery, 46% had no residual disease and 20% were optimally debulked. After CP, 87% reached a clinical complete response, and 13% achieved a partial response. Neutropenia (grade 3/4 in 58% of the patients) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3 in 21%; grade 4 in 3%) were the most frequent toxicities attributed to topotecan. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the arms (P = .83; log-rank test): median PFS was 18.2 months in the topotecan arm and 28.4 in the control arm. Hazard ratio of progression for patients receiving topotecan was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63) after adjustment for residual disease, interval debulking surgery, and response to CP. Conclusion The present analysis indicates that consolidation with topotecan does not improve PFS for patients with advanced ovarian cancer who respond to initial chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel.

Obinutuzumab and Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Monotherapy for Treatment of Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Where Fludarabine-Based Chemotherapy Is Considered Inappropriate: A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1288-1288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Cameron ◽  
Melissa Thompson ◽  
John-Paul Marino ◽  
Michael Duong ◽  
Ursula Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Health States ◽  
Life Years

Abstract BACKGROUND: In Canada, treatment options are limited for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) where fludarabine-based regimens are considered inappropriate. For these patients, chlorambucil monotherapy is considered a standard treatment option. Obinutuzumab is a novel recombinant humanized and glycoengineered Type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 isotype. Clinical data demonstrate that first line therapy with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil can improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chlorambucil alone in CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine-based chemotherapy (29.9 vs. 11.1 months; HR 0.18 (95% CI [0.14; 0.24]), p<0.0001). (Goede et al., 2014; Roche. Data on file; May 2014). Obinutuzumab + chlorambucil also demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit versus chlorambucil alone (HR for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.76; P=0.0014). (Goede et al., 2014; Roche. Data on file; May 2014). We conducted a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of obinutuzumab + chlorambucil versus chlorambucil monotherapy from a Canadian healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was created to estimate the cost-utility of the treatment with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil versus chlorambucil monotherapy over a ten-year time horizon in previously untreated CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine-based chemotherapy. The model simulated patients moving through three health states: “progression-free”, “progression”, and “death”, with all patients beginning in the progression-free state. The progression-free state was divided into sub health states; progression-free with therapy, and progression-free without therapy. Each health state was associated with a utility value and direct medical costs. (Roche. Data on file; April 2014) Transition probabilities from the progression-free health state to the progression state were determined by PFS collected in the CLL11 trial for obinutuzumab + chlorambucil and chlorambucil monotherapy arms (Roche. Data on file; May 2014). Patients who experienced disease progression transitioned to the progression health state where they received second-line therapy and ongoing supportive care. Transition probabilities from the progression-free health state to death were determined based on the treatment specific death rates observed in CLL11. Due to the lack of mature OS data from CLL11 the transition probabilities from the progressed health state to death were determined based on data from the CLL5 trial (Eichhorst et al., 2009). Resource use and costs were estimated using Canadian sources ($CAD 2014), and both costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. The stability of model results was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Treatment with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil produced more life years and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) than treatment with chlorambucil alone. The incremental cost was $35,330 for an incremental life years gain (LYG) of 1.038 and an incremental QALY gain of 0.975 (Table 1). These result in an incremental cost per LYG ratio of $34,028 and an incremental cost per QALY gained of $36,246. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust to changes in model inputs, with the most impactful parameters being time horizon, assumptions regarding survival, treatment duration, and exclusion of second-line therapies. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in a mean ICER of $35,370, with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil having a 94.3% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, and a 100% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY. Abstract 1288. Table 1. Ten year cost-effectiveness results Treatment Total Costs Total LYs Total QALYs Incremental Costs Incremental LYs Incremental QALYs Cost per LYG Cost per QALY Chlorambucil $22,417 3.971 2.546 Obinutuzumab + Chlorambucil $57,747 5.009 3.521 $35,330 1.038 0.975 $34,028 $36,246 CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis demonstrated that improvements in PFS and OS with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil translate into longer term gains in LYs and QALYs. From a Canadian healthcare perspective, first line treatment of CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine based therapies with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil is cost-effective with a cost-utility ratio of $36,246/QALY. Disclosures Cameron: Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Thompson:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Marino:2Hoffmann-La Roche Limited : Employment. Duong:2Hoffmann-La Roche Limited : Employment. Becker:Roche: Employment. Wiesner:4Genentech, Inc. A Member of the Roche Group: Employment.

Final results of OV16, a phase III randomized study of sequential cisplatin-topotecan and carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) versus CP in first-line chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC): A GCIG study of NCIC CTG, EORTC-GCG, and GEICO.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5502-5502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez ◽  
Paul Hoskins ◽  
Ignace Vergote ◽  
Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer ◽  
Prafull Ghatage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Residual Disease ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Significant Difference

5502 Background: Topotecan was evaluated in a novel combination regimen in comparison to standard therapy in front-line EOC. Methods: Women with newly diagnosed advanced EOC stages IIB-IV, ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1, age < 75, were randomized to either Arm 1: cycles 1 - 4: cisplatin 50 mg/m2 d1 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 d1-5 IV; cycles 5 - 8: paclitaxel 175 mg/m2over 3 hrs d1 followed by carboplatin AUC5 day 1 or Arm 2: paclitaxel plus carboplatin as in Arm 1 for 8 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints included objective response, overall survival (OS), adverse event (AE) and Quality of Life (QoL). The sample size required 800 pts and 631 events to detect an improvement in PFS from 16 to 20 months (power 80%, 2-sided alpha 0.05). Results with 3.6 years median follow-up (MFU) were reported previously: there was no significant difference in PFS (Hoskins P, JNCI 2010). Final results including OS after MFU of 8.2 years are reported. Results: From 2001 to 2005, 819 pts (409 Arm 1, 410 Arm 2) were randomized. 704 PFS events and 605 deaths have occurred. PFS results are similar to first report: Median (months [mo]): 14.6 (Arm 1) and 16.2 (Arm 2), hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (95% CI:0.81-1.30; p = 0.83). Median OS is 44.2 mo (Arm 1) and 44.8 mo (Arm 2), HR: 0.92 (95% CI:0.71-1.19; p=0.54). Baseline factors found to be independent predictors of OS in multivariate analysis are: a) pre-randomization surgery (debulking with no macro residual disease (MRD) to no debulking HR: 0.47; 95%CI:0.37-0.58; p < 0.0001; debulking with MRD (<1 cm) to no debulking HR: 0.76; 95%CI:0.61-0.94; p = 0.01), b) Stage (stage II to III or IV HR:0.52; 95%CI:0.36-0.76; p = 0.0007) and c) PS (0 vs 1 HR:0.76; 95%CI:0.63-0.91; p = 0.004). Post-treatment AEs were not significantly different in the two arms. Conclusions: OV16 final results confirm that sequential doublets of topotecan and cisplatin followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel offer no improvement in outcomes compared to carboplatin and paclitaxel. Pretreatment debulking, stage II and PS 0 are predictive of longer OS. Clinical trial information: NCT00028743.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document