Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS:Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non?platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS:Non?platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non?platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION:High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

SUBMITTER: Wolford JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7410501 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Wolford Juliet E JE Bai Jiaru J Moore Kathleen N KN Kristeleit Rebecca R Monk Bradley J BJ Tewari Krishnansu S KS

Gynecologic oncology 20200313 2

<h4>Background</h4>Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We c ...[more]

PMID: 32173049

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePatients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma frequently develop resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy, at which time treatment options become limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor niraparib combined with pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsThe TOPACIO/KEYNOTE-162 (Niraparib in Combination With Pembrolizumab in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer or Ovarian Cancer) trial, an open-label, single-arm phases 1 and 2 study enrolled women with advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or recurrent ovarian carcinoma, irrespective of BRCA mutation status. Median follow-up was 12.4 months (range, 1.2 to ≥23.0 months). Data were collected from April 15, 2016, through September 4, 2018, with September 4, 2018, as a data cutoff, and analyzed from September 4, 2018, through January 30, 2019.InterventionsThe recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was 200 mg of oral niraparib once daily and 200 mg of intravenous pembrolizumab on day 1 of each 21-day cycle.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary objectives of phase 1 were to evaluate dose-limiting toxic effects and establish the RP2D and dosing schedule. The primary objective of phase 2 was to assess objective response rate (ORR; complete plus partial responses). Results from the phase 1 ovarian carcinoma and TNBC cohorts and phase 2 ovarian carcinoma cohort are reported. Because of the similarity in the phase 1 and 2 ovarian carcinoma populations, the data were pooled to perform an integrated efficacy analysis.ResultsFourteen patients (9 with ovarian carcinoma and 5 with TNBC) in phase 1 and 53 patients with ovarian carcinoma in phase 2 were enrolled, for a pooled ovarian carcinoma cohort of 62 patients (median age, 60 years [range, 46-83 years]). In the integrated efficacy phases 1 and 2 ovarian carcinoma population (60 of 62 evaluable patients), ORR was 18% (90% CI, 11%-29%), with a disease control rate of 65% (90% CI, 54%-75%), including 3 (5%) with confirmed complete responses, 8 (13%) with confirmed partial responses, 28 (47%) with stable disease, and 20 (33%) with progressive disease. The ORRs were consistent across subgroups based on platinum-based chemotherapy sensitivity, previous bevacizumab treatment, or tumor BRCA or homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) biomarker status. Median duration of response was not reached (range, 4.2 to ≥14.5 months). At data cutoff, 2 patients with a response and 1 patient with stable disease continued to receive treatment.Conclusions and relevanceNiraparib in combination with pembrolizumab is tolerable, with promising antitumor activity for patients with ovarian carcinoma who have limited treatment options regardless of platinum status, biomarker status, or prior treatment with bevacizumab. Responses in patients without tumor BRCA mutations or non-HRD cancers were higher than expected with either agent as monotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02657889.

Project description:Although epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are initially treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, EOCs vary in platinum responsiveness. Cataloging antineoplastic agents according to their effectiveness against platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive EOC cell lines is valuable for development of therapeutic strategies to avoid platinum inefficacy and to exploit platinum sensitivity. TOV-21G devoid of FANCF expression, OV-90 and SKOV-3 were employed as examples of platinum-sensitive, platinum-intermediate and platinum-resistant cell lines, respectively. Antineoplastic agents examined included mitomycin C, doxorubicin, etoposide, gemcitabine, chlorambucil, paclitaxel, triapine and X-rays. Their effectiveness against cell lines was analyzed by clonogenic assays. Cytotoxic profiles of mitomycin C and carboplatin were similar, with mitomycin C exhibiting greater potency and selectivity against TOV-21G than carboplatin. Cytotoxic profiles of doxorubicin, etoposide and X-rays overlapped with that of carboplatin, while OV-90 overexpressing Rad51 was more resistant to chlorambucil than SKOV-3. The efficacy of paclitaxel and triapine was independent of platinum sensitivity or resistance. Consistent with these cytotoxic profiles, cisplatin/mitomycin C, triapine, and paclitaxel differed in the capacity to induce phosphorylation of H2AX, and produced unique inhibitory patterns of DNA/RNA syntheses in HL-60 human leukemia cells. Paclitaxel and triapine in combination produced additive antitumor effects in M109 murine lung carcinoma. In conclusion, mitomycin C is potentially more effective against Fanconi anemia pathway-deficient EOCs than carboplatin. Doxorubicin and etoposide, because of their overlapping cytotoxic properties with carboplatin, are unlikely to be efficacious against platinum-refractory EOCs. Paclitaxel and triapine are effective regardless of platinum sensitivity status, and promising in combination for both platinum-sensitive and platinum-refractory EOCs.

Project description:BackgroundOlaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.MethodsIn our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648.FindingsBetween Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7-not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7-16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23-0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none).InterpretationCediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy.FundingAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Project description:ObjectivePlatinum-resistant, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) has limited treatment options. Preclinical data suggest that poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) and ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related kinase inhibitors (ATRi) are synergistic. CAPRI (NCT03462342) is an investigator-initiated study of olaparib plus ceralasertib in recurrent HGSOC. Herein, we present results from the platinum-resistant cohort.MethodsA Simon 2-stage design was utilized. Platinum-resistant HGSOC patients received ceralasertib 160 mg orally daily, days 1-7 and olaparib 300 mg orally twice daily, days 1-28 of a 28-day cycle until toxicity or progression. Primary endpoints were toxicity and efficacy including objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST. Secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The null hypothesis (≤5% ORR) would be rejected if there were ≥ 1 responses in 12 patients.ResultsFourteen PARPi-naïve patients were evaluable for toxicity; 12 were evaluable for response. Three had BRCA1 mutations (1 germline, 2 somatic). Adverse events possibly related to treatment were primarily grade (G) 1/2. G3 toxicities included nausea (14.3%), fatigue (7.1%), anorexia (7.1%), and anemia (7.1%). No objective responses occurred. Best response was stable disease in 9 patients and progressive disease in three. Five patients had a ≥ 20% to <30% reduction in disease burden, including 3 with BRCA1 mutations. Three of 11 patients (27%; 2 with BRCA1 mutations) evaluable by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria had >50% CA-125 decline, including 2 with CA-125 normalization. Median PFS was 4.2 months overall (90% CI:3.5-8.2) and 8.2 months (3.6 months-not determined) for patients with BRCA1 mutations.ConclusionsOlaparib plus ceralasertib is well-tolerated. No objective responses occurred, though a signal of activity was seen particularly in disease associated with BRCA1. Further evaluation of this combination should include alternate dosing strategies in genomically-selected populations.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets