COMPARATIVE PHARMACOECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE USE OF AFATINIB AND GEFITINIB IN THERAPY FOR LUNG CANCER

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-51
Author(s):  
Denis Fedyaev ◽  
V. Ignateva ◽  
Yelena Derkach ◽  
Sergey Zyryanov ◽  
Konstantin Laktionov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Egfr Mutation ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Baseline Scenario ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Activating Egfr Mutation ◽  
The Cost

Background: Preliminary results of the study of clinical effectiveness and safety of afatinib in comparison with gefitinib as the first line therapy for the patients with the metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and activating EGFR mutation have been reported in December of 2015. According to this study afatinib has significantly increased the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) (RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.95; р = 0.0165), as well as the time before treatment discontinuation (TTD) (RR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58, 0.92; р = 0.0073) in comparison with gefitinib and the objective response rate (ORR) (70% vs 56%, р = 0.0083). The aim of the present study: Economic evaluation of afatinib in comparison with gefitinib as the first line therapy during the long-term treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC in the patients with the activating EGFR mutation. Methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed using Markov model. The model has been constructed on the basis of the results of clinical study LUX-Lung 7, taking into account the results of the study LUX-Lung 3. The direct medical costs have been taken into account: the cost of drug treatment of metastatic NSCLC during the first and second line therapy, the expenses for palliative care, correction of adverse events, as well as for the follow-up of patients in the course of the treatment. The cost/effectiveness ratio (CER) (Rubles/ Quality adjusted life year, or QALY) has been calculated for afatinib and gefitinib. In the baseline scenario (all patients with frequent activating mutations) the cost-effectiveness of afatinib for all patients with activating EGFR mutation has been evaluated; in addition the costs and outcomes in patients with Del19 and L858R mutation have been analyzed separately. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the analysis results to the variability of initial parameters has been performed. Results: In the baseline scenario the cost of first year treatment with afatinib as the first line therapy has been by 13.56% cheaper than the cost of treatment with gefitinib and amounted to 1.058 million Rubles for afatinib and 1.224 million Rubles for gefitinib. The general expenses for the first year of treatment have amounted to 946 726 Rubles for afatinib, and 1 024 096 Rubles for gefitinib. In the baseline scenario the modeled progression-free survival for afatinib has amounted to 13.15 months and for gefitinib to 10.65 months. The total direct medical costs for first 3 years of treatment for afatinib have amounted to 1.577 million Rubles, for gefitinib 1.585 million Rubles, the number of QALY gained - 1.341 and 1.280 correspondingly. CER for afatinib has amounted to 1.176 million, for gefitinib - 1.239 million Rubles/QALY In the additional scenarios the same results have been demonstrated: CER for afatinib was less than for gefitinib. Conclusions: The administration of afatinib leads to the better clinical results, expressed by the increase of the rate of progression-free survival and longer-term therapy on retention of life quality of the patients in comparison with the administration of gefitinib accompanying by the cost advantage. Subsequently the cost - effectiveness ratio for afatinib is better than for gefitinib. Afatinib is the dominant alternative for the treatment of NSCLC during first line therapy in comparison with gefitinib. The prescription of afatinib offers the possibility to spare funds in the health system and is appropriate from pharmacoeconomic standpoint.

scholarly journals The benefits and risks of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer: a single-arm meta-analysis of noncomparative clinical studies and randomized control trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiangyun Liu ◽  
Yixuan Zhang ◽  
Miaowen Liu ◽  
Ruoxin Xu ◽  
Fengming Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Conventional Chemotherapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background Although pembrolizumab has shown clinical benefit in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), its actual efficacy in combination with a conventional chemotherapy drug has not been determined. We performed this study to discern the efficacy and risk of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in SCLC patients. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for relevant studies. The main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results We identified 2980 articles and included 6 studies (5 were noncomparative open-label studies and 1 was a randomized controlled trial [RCT]) involving 396 patients in our meta-analysis. The pooled median OS (mOS) was 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.0-11.2), and the pooled median PFS (mPFS) was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.2-6.1). The 1-year overall survival rate (OSR-1y) and 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFSR-6m) were 45.1% (95% CI, 33-57.2%) and 41.6% (95% CI, 24.3-59%), respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 38.8% (95% CI, 11.9-65.67%), disease control rate (DCR) was 69.30% (95% CI, 51.6-87.0%), complete response (CR) was 2.20% (95% CI, 0.8-3.7%), partial response (PR) was 34.70% (95% CI, 7.8-61.5%), and stable disease (SD) was 20.90% (95% CI, 9.1-32.6%). The grade 3-4 adverse effect (AE) rate was 20.88% (95% CI, 1.22-54.85%). The most common AEs were neutropenia (90.16%), anemia (53.21%), dysphagia (41.96%), platelet count decrease (34.87%), and esophagitis (32.89%); severe AEs included neutropenia, respiratory failure, pneumonitis, acute coronary syndrome, and colitis/intestinal ischemia. Conclusions The combination of pembrolizumab with conventional chemotherapy is an effective therapeutic schedule with acceptable and manageable efficacy and toxicity in patients with SCLC. More high-quality and well-designed RCTs with large sample sizes are warranted to further validate our findings.

Prognostic impact of prior local therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikifumi Koura ◽  
Masaki Shiota ◽  
Shohei Ueda ◽  
Takashi Matsumoto ◽  
Satoshi Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Local Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Objective This study aimed to reveal the prognostic values of prior local therapy in first-line therapy using androgen receptor-axis targeting agents (abiraterone or enzalutamide) or docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods The study included 303 patients treated with first-line therapy for non-metastatic and metastatic CRPC. The association between prior local therapy and therapeutic outcome including progression-free survival and overall survival was investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses as well as propensity score-matched analysis. Results In univariate analysis, local prior therapy was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.56, 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.79; P = 0.0009). Overall survival, but not progression-free survival, was better among patients with prior local therapy compared with patients without prior local therapy even after multivariate analysis and propensity score-matched analysis. Conclusions This study robustly indicated that prior local treatment was prognostic for overall survival among patients with CRPC. This finding is useful to predict patient prognosis in CRPC.

scholarly journals Protocol of the EFFORT study: a prospective study of FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line treatment after progression on FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab or during maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is used as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are no clear recommendations for second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab combination. Here, we describe our planning for the EFFORT study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Methods EFFORT is an open-label, multicenter, single arm phase II study to evaluate whether a FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who received FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy will receive aflibercept and FOLFIRI (aflibercept 4 mg/kg, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, with levofolinate 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 h, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46 h) every 2 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). To achieve 80% power to show a significant response benefit with a one-sided alpha level of 0.10, assuming a threshold progression-free survival of 3 months and an expected value of at least 5.4 months, we estimated that 32 patients are necessary. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and exploratory biomarker analysis for differentiating anti-VEGF drug in 2nd-line chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Discussion This is the first study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Switching to a different type of anti-VEGF drug in second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab appears to be an attractive treatment strategy when considering survival benefit. It is expected that this phase II study will prove the efficacy of this strategy and that a biomarker for drug selection will be discovered. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071190003. Registered April 18, 2019.

Comparing The Cost-Effectiveness Of Rituximab Maintenance (MR) and Radioimmunotherapy (RIT) Consolidation Therapy Following First-Line Chemo/Immunochemotherapies For Follicular Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 2923-2923
Author(s):  
Qiushi Chen ◽  
Turgay Ayer ◽  
Adam C Rose ◽  
Loretta J. Nastoupil ◽  
Christopher R. Flowers
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Frontline Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Follicular lymphoma (FL), the most common indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, has been regarded incurable and no consensus in management strategy has existed so far. In current clinical practice, the most commonly used frontline therapy is the immunochemotherapy (R-chemotherapy). Several phase III randomized trials - ECOG1496(Hochster, JCO2009), PRIMA(Salles, Lancet2011), and FIT(Morschhauser, JCO2008) - have shown that rituximab maintenance (MR) therapy and radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation in addition to the frontline R-chemotherapy can improve progression-free survival (PFS) and help achieve a higher response quality. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance or consolidation therapy versus observation after frontline treatment from the US payer's perspective. Methods We developed separate Markov models over patients' lifetime for PRIMA, ECOG, and FIT trial to compare the cost and effectiveness of observation with MR/RIT after completion of frontline treatment. Published progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were extracted and fitted with Log-logistic regression survival model. Progression risks and cause-specific mortality after first-line treatment were extrapolated from the corresponding fitted PFS and OS model for each arm. Risk estimates after second-line treatment were identical for different models, estimated from the published survivals of observation arm in EORTC20981 trial. Costs for administration, monitoring, and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for physician services, and drug costs were the wholesale acquisition cost, all valued in 2013 US dollars. In the microsimulation, initial age at diagnosis was sampled from the age distribution according to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) database. All costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% per year. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per life-year gained (LY) and cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model robustness in parameter uncertainties were addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Compared with observation, MR therapy provided 0.998 QALYs (0.901 LYs) at a cost of $43234 in PRIMA study, 1.070 QALYs (0.866 LYs) at a cost of $50146 in ECOG study, while RIT consolidation provided 0.795 QALYs (0.653 LYs) at a cost of $46085 in FIT trial. The incremental cost per QALY gained for RIT in FIT, and MR in PRIMA and ECOG were $57975, $43301, and $46844, respectively. From the table summarizing effectiveness and cost results, RIT and MR had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, while RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to relatively high incidence of adverse events in the RIT arm. Conclusions We used the same modeling framework and consistent parameter estimates to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MR and RIT compared to observation after frontline treatment for FL patients. All strategies showed favorable cost-effectiveness profile with ICER below $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay. Differences in induction therapies in three trials should also be noted when the ICERs of three models are compared. Disclosures: Flowers: Abbott, Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Sanofi, Spectrum, Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Genentech Bio-oncology : Consultancy.

EVERSUN: A phase II trial of everolimus alternating with sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (ANZUP trial 0901).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4681-TPS4681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian D. Davis ◽  
Val Gebski ◽  
Mark D. Chatfield ◽  
Peter S. Grimison ◽  
George Kannourakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

TPS4681 Background: Treatment of RCC has improved due to better understanding of its biology. New targeted therapies have improved time to progression and overall survival but the optimal sequencing of agents is unknown. Currently drugs are given sequentially, usually starting with sunitinib and often followed by an mTOR inhibitor or another VEGFR-targeted therapy, but resistance to both drugs eventually occurs probably due to host adaptive responses. We hypothesize that resistance might be delayed by planned alternation of treatments. Methods: EVERSUN is a single-arm, two-stage, multicenter, phase II clinical trial aiming to determine the activity and safety of an alternating regimen of two therapies with different targets (sunitinib and everolimus) in patients with advanced RCC. Key eligibility criteria: RCC with a clear cell component; metastatic or locally advanced disease not suitable for resection; ECOG performance status 0-1; low or intermediate MSKCC prognostic score. The primary endpoint is the status of being alive and progression-free (RECIST 1.1) 6 months after registration. Target accrual of 55 subjects gives 95% power and 95% confidence to distinguish between 6-month progression free survival rates of 64% or lower vs 84% or higher using a Simon 2-stage minimax design. The criteria for further evaluation come from the pivotal trial of single agent sunitinib as first line therapy for RCC, in which the 6-month progression free survival rate was 74%. Trial treatment is administered in 12-week (wk) cycles consisting of 4 wks of sunitinib (50 mg daily) followed by 2 wks rest, followed by 5 wks of everolimus (10 mg daily) followed by 1 wk rest. Disease progression is interpreted as failure of the most recent drug taken. Participants who stop one drug because of toxicity or disease progression, on or before the 6 month assessment, will continue the other drug until subsequent progression or prohibitive toxicity on the second drug. EVERSUN is an ANZUP Cancer Trials Group Ltd. trial coordinated by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. Accrual commenced in September 2010 with 38/55 participants recruited as of the 31-Jan-12 from 17 Australian sites (ACTRN12609000643279).

Progression-free survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: An exploration of response to systemic therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 588-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Bibeau ◽  
Luis Féliz ◽  
Scott Barrett ◽  
Ling Na ◽  
Christine Francis Lihou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

588 Background: Most cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) are diagnosed with advanced disease and are ineligible for surgery. FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements are present in 10–16% of pts with intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) and are reported to be oncogenic drivers. However, little data are available on the role of FGFR2 genetic alterations in the response to systemic cancer therapy. FIGHT-202 is a phase 2 study of pemigatinib (a selective, potent, oral FGFR1–3 inhibitor) in pts with previously treated advanced/metastatic CCA (NCT02924376); primary results were reported at ESMO 2019. FIGHT-202 enrolled pts who progressed on ≥1 prior therapy, allowing the examination of the role of FGFR2 alterations on the response to prior therapy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate progression free survival (PFS) on standard systemic therapy received prior to study enrollment among pts with CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements ( FGFR2+). Methods: Case report forms were reviewed to determine disease history and exposure to prior lines of systemic cancer therapies (LOSCT) in the advanced setting before receiving pemigatinib. Only pts with sufficient data on prior LOSCT were included in this analysis. Median PFS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 102 pts were included in this analysis (median age 54.5, 61.8% female). Median PFS on first-line therapy was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.0, 8.0) months. Among the 38 pts (37.3%) with ≥2 prior LOSCT, median PFS on second-line therapy was 4.4 (95% CI: 3.0, 5.3) months. Conclusions: This analysis provides data about PFS on standard systemic therapies for pts with FGFR2+ CCA. Median PFS on first-line therapy was lower than historical published data, and median PFS on second-line therapy was slightly longer than previously reported, in unselected CCA populations. Limitations of this analysis include retrospective examination of investigator reported data, and that clinical trial participants may not truly reflect a general CCA patient population. The short PFS on standard therapies in pts with FGFR2+ CCA highlights the need for development of other options including targeted therapies to improve outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document