Alien Registration- Mougalian, Vehanoush (Portland, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/32133/thumbnail.jp

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Women With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE: The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed. OBJECTIVE: To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020. EXPOSURE: There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to$518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70$0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered

Treatment Sequencing Patterns and Associated Direct Medical Costs of Metastatic Breast Cancer Care in the United States, 2011 to 2021

IMPORTANCE: Advances in treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) led to changes in clinical practice and treatment costs in the US over the past decade. There is limited information on current MBC treatment sequences and associated costs by MBC subtype in the US. OBJECTIVES: To identify treatment patterns by MBC subtype and associated anticancer and supportive drug costs from health care sector and Medicare perspectives. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation analyzed data of patients with MBC obtained from the nationwide Flatiron Health database, an electronic health record-derived, deidentified database with data from community and academic practices across the US from 2011 to 2021. Participants included women aged at least 18 years diagnosed with MBC, who had at least 6 months of follow-up data, known hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2) receptor status, and at least 1 documented line of therapy. Patients with documented receipt of clinical study drugs were excluded. Data were analyzed from June 2021 to May 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were frequency of different drug regimens received as a line of therapy by subtype for the first 5 lines and mean medical costs of documented anticancer treatment and supportive care drugs per patient by MBC subtype and years since metastatic diagnosis, indexed to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: Among 15 215 patients (10 171 patients [66.85%] with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC; 2785 patients [18.30%] with HR-positive and ERBB2-positive MBC; 802 patients [5.27%] with HR-negative and ERBB2-positive MBC; 1457 patients [9.58%] with triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]) who met eligibility criteria, 1777 (11.68%) were African American, 363 (2.39%) were Asian, and 9800 (64.41%) were White; the median (range) age was 64 (21-84) years. The mean total per-patient treatment and supportive care drug cost using publicly available Medicare prices was $334 812 for patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-positive MBC,$284 609 for patients with HR-negative and ERBB2-positive MBC, $104 774 for patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC, and$54 355 for patients with TNBC. From 2011 to 2019 (most recent complete year 1 data are for patients diagnosed in 2019), annual costs in year 1 increased from $12 986 to$80 563 for ERBB2-negative and HR-positive MBC, $99 997 to$156 712 for ERBB2-positive and HR-positive MBC, and $31 397 to$53 775 for TNBC. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation found that drug costs related to MBC treatment increased between 2011 and 2021 and differed by tumor subtype. These findings suggest the growing financial burden of MBC treatment in the US and highlights the importance of performing more accurate cost-effectiveness analysis of novel adjuvant therapies that aim to reduce metastatic recurrence rates for early-stage breast cancer

Neoadjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer:Treatment Considerations and Common Debates in Practice

Neoadjuvant treatment offers a number of benefits for patients with early breast cancer, and is an important option for consideration by multidisciplinary teams. Despite literature showing its efficacy, the use of neoadjuvant therapy varies widely. Here we discuss the clinical evidence supporting the use of neoadjuvant therapy in early stage breast cancer, including patient selection, monitoring response, surgery and radiotherapy considerations, with the aim of assisting multidisciplinary teams to determine patient suitability for neoadjuvant treatment

Alien Registration- Mougalian, Vehanoush (Portland, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/32133/thumbnail.jp

Alien Registration- Mougalian, Yessai (Portland, Cumberland County)

https://digitalmaine.com/alien_docs/23383/thumbnail.jp