Dataset Information

Olaparib not cost-effective as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2 germline-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of olaparib as a maintenance therapy in platinum-responsive, metastatic pancreatic cancer patients harboring a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, using the Swiss context as a model.

Methods

Based on data from the POLO trial, published literature and local cost data, we developed a partitioned survival model of olaparib maintenance including full costs for BRCA1/2 germline testing compared to FOLFIRI maintenance chemotherapy and watch-and-wait. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base case and several scenario analyses and estimated 5-year budget impact.

Results

Comparing olaparib with watch-and wait and maintenance chemotherapy resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CHF 2,711,716 and CHF 2,217,083 per QALY gained, respectively. The 5-year costs for the olaparib strategy in Switzerland would be CHF 22.4 million, of which CHF 11.4 million would be accounted for by germline BRCA1/2 screening of the potentially eligible population. This would amount to a budget impact of CHF 15.4 million (USD 16.9 million) versus watch-and-wait.

Conclusions

Olaparib is not a cost-effective maintenance treatment option. Companion diagnostics are an equally important cost driver as the drug itself.

SUBMITTER: Mehra T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10994352 | biostudies-literature | 2024

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Olaparib not cost-effective as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2 germline-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Mehra Tarun T Lupatsch Judith E JE Kössler Thibaud T Dedes Konstantin K Siebenhüner Alexander Reinhard AR von Moos Roger R Wicki Andreas A Schwenkglenks Matthias E ME

PloS one 20240404 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of olaparib as a maintenance therapy in platinum-responsive, metastatic pancreatic cancer patients harboring a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, using the Swiss context as a model.<h4>Methods</h4>Based on data from the POLO trial, published literature and local cost data, we developed a partitioned survival model of olaparib maintenance including full costs for BRCA1/2 germline testing compared to FOLFIRI maintenance chemotherapy and ...[more]

PMID: 38573891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation make up a small subgroup of those with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has had antitumor activity in this population.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients who had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer and disease that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, to receive maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review.ResultsOf the 3315 patients who underwent screening, 154 underwent randomization and were assigned to a trial intervention (92 to receive olaparib and 62 to receive placebo). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.82; P = 0.004). An interim analysis of overall survival, at a data maturity of 46%, showed no difference between the olaparib and placebo groups (median, 18.9 months vs. 18.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.46; P = 0.68). There was no significant between-group difference in health-related quality of life, as indicated by the overall change from baseline in the global quality-of-life score (on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (between-group difference, -2.47 points; 95% CI, -7.27 to 2.33). The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 40% in the olaparib group and 23% in the placebo group (between-group difference, 16 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.02 to 31); 5% and 2% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial intervention because of an adverse event.ConclusionsAmong patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer, progression-free survival was longer with maintenance olaparib than with placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; POLO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02184195.).

Project description:BackgroundThe recent approval of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy can significantly affect the management of ovarian cancer. Clinical benefits, however, come with trade-offs in adverse events and costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new ovarian cancer poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapies, olaparib and niraparib, as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.MethodsA decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib compared with placebo from a U.S. health care sector perspective. Costs included drug costs and costs of disease monitoring and management of adverse events throughout the treatment course. Costs were estimated from RED BOOK, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the literature and reported in 2017 U.S. dollars. Clinical effectiveness was measured in progression-free survival (PFS) life-years based on clinical trial results (NCT00753545, NCT01874353, and NCT01847274). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed by dividing the incremental cost by the incremental effectiveness.ResultsAt base case, niraparib was the more effective treatment option with slightly higher PFS, followed by olaparib. The ICERs for niraparib and olaparib compared with common baseline placebo were $235K and $287K per PFS life-year, respectively, with olaparib extended-dominated by niraparib. Both drugs were associated with lower ICERs in patients with a gBRCA mutation than in patients without a gBRCA mutation. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that drug prices and PFS could affect ICERs significantly, but the ICERs remained above $100K per PFS life-year within the plausible ranges of all parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that niraparib was associated with higher net benefits compared with placebo only when willingness-to-pay (WTP) values were above $210K per PFS life-year thresholds.ConclusionsPARP inhibitors niraparib and olaparib will extend PFS in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients but are also associated with high drug acquisition costs. The base case ICERs were around or above $250K per PFS life-year in this model. No formal cost-effectiveness WTP threshold for health technology assessment exists in the United States. At a reference WTP of $100K per PFS life-year, the PARP inhibitors may not be cost-effective options.DisclosuresThis study was unfunded. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Project description:PurposeA phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00628251) showed activity of olaparib capsules versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer. We conducted a phase III trial (SOLO3) of olaparib tablets versus nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy.Patients and methodsIn this randomized, open-label trial, patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day or physician's choice single-agent nonplatinum chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) in the measurable disease analysis set assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). The key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by BICR in the intent-to-treat population.ResultsOf 266 randomly assigned patients, 178 were assigned to olaparib and 88 to chemotherapy. In patients with measurable disease (olaparib, n = 151; chemotherapy, n = 72), the BICR-assessed ORR was significantly higher with olaparib than with chemotherapy (72.2% v 51.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53 [95% CI, 1.40 to 4.58]; P = .002). In the subgroup who had received 2 prior lines of treatment, the ORR was 84.6% with olaparib and 61.5% with chemotherapy (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 1.42 to 8.54]). BICR-assessed PFS also significantly favored olaparib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.91]; P = .013; median, 13.4 v 9.2 months). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of olaparib and chemotherapy.ConclusionOlaparib resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in ORR and PFS compared with nonplatinum chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer who had received at least 2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy.

Dataset Information

Olaparib not cost-effective as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2 germline-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Olaparib not cost-effective as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2 germline-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets