Healthcare costs of metastatic cutaneous melanoma in the era of immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs

Immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs improved survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding their healthcare costs in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Data were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry for patients who were registered between July 2012 and December 2018. Mean total/monthly costs per patient were reported for all patients, patients who did not receive systemic therapy, and patients who received systemic therapy. Furthermore, mean episode/monthly costs per line of therapy and drug were reported for patients who received systemic therapy. Mean total/monthly costs were € 89,240/€ 6809: € 7988/€ 2483 for patients who did not receive systemic therapy (n = 784) and € 105,078/€ 7652 for patients who received systemic therapy (n = 4022). Mean episode/monthly costs were the highest for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (€ 79,675/€ 16,976), ipilimumab monotherapy (€ 79,110/€ 17,252), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (€ 77,053/€ 12,015). Dacarbazine yielded the lowest mean episode/monthly costs (€ 6564/€ 2027). Our study showed that immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs had a large impact on real-world healthcare costs. As new drugs continue entering the treatment landscape for (metastatic) melanoma, it remains crucial to monitor whether the benefits of these drugs outweigh their costs

Healthcare Costs of Metastatic Cutaneous Melanoma in the Era of Immunotherapeutic and Targeted Drugs

Immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs improved survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding their healthcare costs in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide insight into real-world healthcare costs of patients with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Data were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry for patients who were registered between July 2012 and December 2018. Mean total/monthly costs per patient were reported for all patients, patients who did not receive systemic therapy, and patients who received systemic therapy. Furthermore, mean episode/monthly costs per line of therapy and drug were reported for patients who received systemic therapy. Mean total/monthly costs were € 89,240/€ 6809: € 7988/€ 2483 for patients who did not receive systemic therapy (n = 784) and € 105,078/€ 7652 for patients who received systemic therapy (n = 4022). Mean episode/monthly costs were the highest for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (€ 79,675/€ 16,976), ipilimumab monotherapy (€ 79,110/€ 17,252), and dabrafenib plus trametinib (€ 77,053/€ 12,015). Dacarbazine yielded the lowest mean episode/monthly costs (€ 6564/€ 2027). Our study showed that immunotherapeutic and targeted drugs had a large impact on real-world healthcare costs. As new drugs continue entering the treatment landscape for (metastatic) melanoma, it remains crucial to monitor whether the benefits of these drugs outweigh their costs

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma

Background: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment’s relative effectiveness and safety. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. Results: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). Conclusions: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment’s relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outcomes in everyday clinical practice

Assessing the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments in the Netherlands:The impact of different thresholds for effectiveness

Background: In the Netherlands, the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs) is assessed by the Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM). For non-curative SACTs, the assessment is based on the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival and/or overall survival (OS), and the difference in median survival. We evaluated the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness by reassessing the clinical benefit of SACTs. Methods: We reassessed SACTs that were initially assessed by cieBOM between 2015 and 2017. Four scenarios were formulated: replacing an “OR” approach (initial assessment) by an “AND” approach (used in all scenarios), changing the HR threshold from &lt; 0.70 (initial assessment) to &lt; 0.60, changing the threshold for the difference in median survival from &gt; 12 weeks (initial assessment) to &gt; 16 weeks, and including thresholds for OS rates. The outcomes of these scenarios were compared to the outcomes of the initial assessment. Results: Reassessments were conducted for 41 treatments. Replacing the “OR” approach by an “AND” approach substantially decreased the number of positive assessments (from 33 to 22), predominantly affecting immunotherapies. This number further decreased (to 21 and 19, respectively) in case more restrictive thresholds for the HR and difference in median survival were used. Including thresholds for OS rates slightly mitigated the impact of applying an “AND” approach. Conclusions: The scenario-specific thresholds had a substantial impact; the number of negative assessments more than doubled. Since this was not limited to treatments with marginal survival benefits, understanding the potential challenges that may arise from applying more restrictive thresholds is essential.</p

Assessing the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments in the Netherlands:The impact of different thresholds for effectiveness

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs) is assessed by the Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM). For non-curative SACTs, the assessment is based on the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival and/or overall survival (OS), and the difference in median survival. We evaluated the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness by reassessing the clinical benefit of SACTs.METHODS: We reassessed SACTs that were initially assessed by cieBOM between 2015 and 2017. Four scenarios were formulated: replacing an "OR" approach (initial assessment) by an "AND" approach (used in all scenarios), changing the HR threshold from &lt; 0.70 (initial assessment) to &lt; 0.60, changing the threshold for the difference in median survival from &gt; 12 weeks (initial assessment) to &gt; 16 weeks, and including thresholds for OS rates. The outcomes of these scenarios were compared to the outcomes of the initial assessment.RESULTS: Reassessments were conducted for 41 treatments. Replacing the "OR" approach by an "AND" approach substantially decreased the number of positive assessments (from 33 to 22), predominantly affecting immunotherapies. This number further decreased (to 21 and 19, respectively) in case more restrictive thresholds for the HR and difference in median survival were used. Including thresholds for OS rates slightly mitigated the impact of applying an "AND" approach.CONCLUSIONS: The scenario-specific thresholds had a substantial impact; the number of negative assessments more than doubled. Since this was not limited to treatments with marginal survival benefits, understanding the potential challenges that may arise from applying more restrictive thresholds is essential.</p

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes in advanced melanoma

Background: Although a myriad of novel treatments entered the treatment paradigm for advanced melanoma, there is lack of head-to-head evidence. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate each treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane to identify all phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a time frame from January 1, 2010 to March 11, 2019. We retrieved evidence on treatment-related grade III/IV adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Evidence was synthesised using a Bayesian fixed-effect NMA. Reference treatment was dacarbazine. In accordance with RCTs, dacarbazine was pooled with temozolomide, paclitaxel and paclitaxel plus carboplatin. To increase homogeneity of the study populations, RCTs were only included if patients were not previously treated with novel treatments. Results: The SLR identified 28 phase III RCTs involving 14,376 patients. Nineteen and seventeen treatments were included in the effectiveness and safety NMA, respectively. For PFS, dabrafenib plus trametinib (hazard ratio [HR] PFS: 0.21) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR PFS: 0.22) were identified as most favourable treatments. Both had, however, less favourable safety profiles. Five other treatments closely followed (dabrafenib [HR PFS: 0.30], nivolumab plus ipilimumab [HR PFS: 0.34], vemurafenib [HR PFS: 0.38], nivolumab [HR PFS: 0.42] and pembrolizumab [HR PFS: 0.46]). In contrast, for OS, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR OS: 0.39), nivolumab (HR OS: 0.46) and pembrolizumab (HR OS: 0.50) were more favourable than dabrafenib plus trametinib (HR OS: 0.55) and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib (HR OS: 0.57). Conclusions: Our NMA identified the most effective treatment options for advanced melanoma and provided valuable insights into each novel treatment's relative effectiveness and safety. This information may facilitate evidence-based decision-making and may support the optimisation of treatment and outco

Health-related quality of life in patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease

Background: Evidence regarding health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (SR-aGvHD) is lacking. Evaluating HRQoL was a secondary objective of the HOVON 113 MSC trial. Here we describe the outcomes of the EQ-5D-5L, EORTC QLQ-C30, and FACT-BMT for all adult patients who completed these questionnaires at baseline (i.e., before the start of treatment; n = 26). Methods: Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline patient and disease characteristics, EQ-5D dimension scores and values, EQ VAS scores, EORTC QLQ-C30 scale/item and summary scores, and FACT-BMT subscale and total scores. Results: The mean EQ-5D value was 0.36. In total, 96% of the patients reported problems with usual activities, 92% with pain/discomfort, 84% with mobility, 80% with self-care, and 72% with anxiety/depression. The mean EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score was 43.50. Mean scale/item scores ranged from 21.79 to 60.00 for functioning scales, from 39.74 to 75.21 for symptom scales, and from 5.33 to 91.67 for single items. The mean FACT-BMT total score was 75.31. Mean subscale scores ranged from 10.09 for physical well-being to 23.94 for social/family well-being. Conclusion: Our study showed that HRQoL in patients with SR-aGvHD is poor. Improving HRQoL and symptom management in these patients should be a top priority

Stage-specific trends in incidence and survival of cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands (2003–2018): A nationwide population-based study

Objective : To examine stage-specific trends in the incidence and survival of cutaneous melanoma in the Netherlands between 2003 and 2018, as well as the uptake of the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and novel drugs during that period. Methods : Data were obtained from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry for all patients diagnosed with invasive primary cutaneous melanoma (n = 60,267). We presented age-standardized incidence rates, the proportion of patients with an SLNB, the proportion of patients who received a novel drug (for their primary diagnosis) and one- and five-year relative survival rates. Results : Between 2003 and 2018, the incidence rate increased from 10.9 to 23.9 for men and from 15.6 to 27.3 for women. This increase reflected the increasing incidence rate of patients with stage I and III. The proportion of patients with an SLNB increased from 23% to 64%. A reasonable increase was observed in the proportion of patients with a positive outcome (from 2% to 11%). For patients with stage IV, there was a shift from chemotherapy towards novel drugs as from 2013. The five-year relative survival rate increased from 81% to 92% for men and from 88% to 96% for women. This increase reflected the increasing five-year relative survival rate of patients with stage II, III, and IV. Conclusion : We observed an increase in incidence for patients with stage I and III and an improvement in survival for patients with stage II, III and IV. These trends can be partly explained by the introduction of the SLNB and the novel drugs