The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: The need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance

__Abstract__ Introduction: Structural uncertainty relates to differences in model structure and parameterization. For many published health economic analyses in oncology, substantial differences in model structure exist, leading to differences in analysis outcomes and potentially impacting decision-making processes. The objectives of this analysis were (1) to identify differences in model structure and parameterization for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing tamoxifen and anastrazole for adjuvant breast cancer (ABC) treatment; and (2) to quantify the impact of these differences on analysis outcome metrics. Methods: The analysis consisted of four steps: (1) review of the literature for identification of eligible CEAs; (2) definition and implementation of a base model structure, which included the core structural components for all identified CEAs; (3) definition and implementation of changes or additions in the base model structure or parameterization; and (4) quantification of the impact of changes in model structure or parameterizations on the analysis outcome metrics life-years gained (LYG), incremental costs (IC) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Eleven CEA analyses comparing anastrazole and tamoxifen as ABC treatment were identified. The base model consisted of the following health states: (1) on treatment; (2) off treatment; (3) local recurrence; (4) metastatic disease; (5) death due to breast cancer; and (6) death due to other causes. The base model estimates of anastrazole versus tamoxifen for the LYG, IC and ICER were 0.263 years, €3,647 and €13,868/LYG, respectively. In the published models that were evaluated, differences in model structure included the addition of different recurrence health states, and associated transition rates were identified. Differences in parameterization were related to the incidences of recurrence, local recurrence to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death. The separate impact of these model components on the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.356 years, while incremental costs ranged from €3,490 to €3,714 and ICERs ranged from €9,804/LYG to €17,966/LYG. When we re-analyzed the published CEAs in our framework by including their respective model properties, the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.383 years, IC ranged from €3,556 to €3,731 and ICERs ranged from €9,683/LYG to €17,570/LYG. Conclusion:

Does Older Age Lead to Higher Risk for Neutropenia in Patients Treated with Paclitaxel?

Purpose: There is ongoing concern regarding increased toxicity from paclitaxel in elderly patients, particularly of severe neutropenia. Yet, data so far is controversial and this concern is not supported by a clinically relevant age-dependent difference in pharmacokinetics (PK) of paclitaxel. This study assessed whether age is associated with increased risk for paclitaxel-induced neutropenia. Methods: Paclitaxel plasma concentration-time data, pooled from multiple different studies, was combined with available respective neutrophil count data during the first treatment cycle. Paclitaxel pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) d

Hot flashes are not predictive for serum concentrations of tamoxifen and its metabolites

Background: Tamoxifen has dramatically reduced the recurrence and mortality rate of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. However, the efficacy of tamoxifen varies between individuals and 40% of patients will have a recurrence despite adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Factors that predict tamoxifen efficacy would be helpful for optimizing treatment. Serum concentrations of the active metabolite, endoxifen, may be positively related to treatment outcome. In addition, hot flashes are suggested to be positively associated with tamoxifen treatment outcome. Methods: We investigated in a series of 109 patients whether the frequency and severity of hot flashes were related to concentrations of tamoxifen and its metabolites. A serum sample of all patients was analyzed for the concentration of tamoxifen, N-desmethyltamoxifen, endoxifen and 4-hydroxytamoxifen, as well as for estradiol concentrations and several single nucleotide polymorphisms in CYP2D6. Additionally, these patients completed a questionnaire concerning biometric data and treatment side effects. Results: We found no evidence supporting an association between concentrations of tamoxifen or metabolites and either the frequency or severity of hot flashes in the covariate unadjusted analyses. However, including interactions with menopausal status and pre-treatment hot flash (PTHF) history indicated that post-menopausal women with PTHF experienced an increasing frequency of hot flashes with increasing serum concentrations of tamoxifen and its metabolites. This finding was not altered when adjusting for potential confounding factors (duration of tamoxifen treatment, CYP2D6 phenotype, estradiol serum concentration, age and body mass index). In addition we observed a positive association between body mass index and both hot flash frequency (p = 0.04) and severity (p < 0.0001). We also observed that patients with lower estradiol levels reported more severe hot flashes (p = 0.02). Conclusions: No univariate associations were observed between concentrations of active tamoxifen metabolites and either the frequency or severity of hot flashes during treatment. However, the frequency of hot flashes may be exacerbated by higher serum concentrations of tamoxifen and its metabolites in post-menopausal women with a history of hot flashes prior to tamoxifen treatment

Impact of CYP3A4*22 on Pazopanib Pharmacokinetics in Cancer Patients

Background and Objective: As pazopanib plasma trough concentrations are correlated with treatment outcome, we explored whether single nucleotide polymorphisms in the elimination pathway of pazopanib affect systemic pazopanib concentrations. Methods: The decreased function alleles CYP3A4 15389 C > T (*22), ABCB1 3435 C >T, ABCG2 421 C >A, and ABCG2 34G >A were analyzed within a recently developed population-pharmacokinetic model. Results: Incorporation of CYP3A4*22 in the model resulted in a 35% lower clearance for variant carriers (0.18 vs. 0.27 L/h; difference in objective function value: − 9.7; p < 0.005). Simulated median trough concentrations of cancer patients with CYP3A4*22 with 600 mg once daily or 800 mg once daily were 31 and 35 mg/L, respectively. The simulated trough concentrations for the population excluding the CYP3A4*22 carriers after 600 mg once daily or 800 mg once daily were 18 and 20 mg/L, respectively. Conclusion: This analysis shows that CYP3A4*22 heterozygotes have a substantial lower pazopanib clearance and that dose adjustments based on CYP3A4*22 status could be considered

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus palliative systemic chemotherapy in stomach cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination, the study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PERISCOPE II)

Background: At present, palliative systemic chemotherapy is the standard treatment in the Netherlands for gastric cancer patients with peritoneal dissemination. In contrast to lymphatic and haematogenous dissemination, peritoneal dissemination may be regarded as locoregional spread of disease. Administering cytotoxic drugs directly into the peritoneal cavity has an advantage over systemic chemotherapy since high concentrations can be delivered directly into the peritoneal cavity with limited systemic toxicity. The combination of a radical gastrectomy with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has shown promising results in patients with gastric cancer in Asia. However, the results obtained in Asian patients cannot be extrapolated to Western patients. The aim of this study is to compare the overall survival between patients with gastric cancer with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy, and those treated with gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC after neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Methods: In this multicentre randomised controlled two-armed phase III trial, 106 patients will be randomised (1:1) between palliative systemic chemotherapy only (standard treatment) and gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC (experimental treatment) after 3–4 cycles of systemic chemotherapy.Patients with gastric cancer are eligible for inclusion if (1) the primary cT3-cT4 gastric tumour including regional lymph nodes is considered to be resectable, (2) limited peritoneal dissemination (Peritoneal Cancer Index < 7) and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology are confirmed by laparoscopy or laparotomy, and (3) systemic chemotherapy was given (prior to inclusion) without disease progression. Discussion: The PERISCOPE II study will determine whether gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination and/or tumour positive peritoneal cytology treated with systemic chemotherapy, gastrectomy, CRS and HIPEC have a survival benefit over patients treated with palliative systemic chemotherapy only. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03348150; registration date November 2017; first enrolment November 2017; expected end date December 2022; trial status: Ongoing

Pharmacokinetically guided sunitinib dosing: A feasibility study in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background:Plasma exposure of sunitinib shows large inter-individual variation. Therefore, a pharmacokinetic (PK) study was performed to determine safety and feasibility of sunitinib dosing based on PK levels.Methods:Patients were treated with sunitinib 37.5 mg once daily. At days 15 and 29 of treatment, plasma trough levels of sunitinib and N-desethyl sunitinib were measured. If the total trough level (TTL) was <50 ng ml -1 and the patient did not show any grade ≥3 toxicity, the daily sunitinib dose was increased by 12.5 mg. If the patient suffered from grade ≥3 toxicity, the sunitinib dose was lowered by 12.5 mg.Results:Twenty-nine out of 43 patients were evaluable for PK assessments. Grade ≥3 adverse events were experienced in seven patients (24%) at the starting dose and in nine patients (31%) after dose escalation. TTLs were below target in 15 patients (52%) at the starting dose. Of these, five patients (17%) reached target TTL after dose escalation without additional toxicity.Conclusions:In a third of the patients that were below target TTL at standard dose, the sunitinib dose could be increased without additional toxicities. This could be the basis for future studies and the implementation of a PK-guided dosing strategy in clinical practice