Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy.Methods
The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained.Results
PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance.Conclusions
This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.
SUBMITTER: Gonzalez R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086124 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This meta-analysis was undertaken to systematically evaluate the effects of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) maintenance therapy on the survival of newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients. A systematic literature search revealed 3,227 studies. A subsequent selection process identified seven suitable randomized studies that assessed the survival outcomes in newly diagnosed advanced EOC patients administered PARPi (n = 1921; the PARPi group) or placebo (n = 1150; the placebo group). The survival outcomes were compared with respect to the PARPi treatment regardless of bevacizumab maintenance therapy. All adverse events ≥ grade 3 were analyzed. Review Manager Version 5.4.1 software was used for the meta-analysis. The two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in the PARPi group than the placebo (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.68). Furthermore, patients in the PARPi group with the BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm), BRCA wild type, homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCAm, but not with homologous-recombination proficiency had a significantly better two-year PFS than the patients in the placebo group. The five-year overall survival (OS) was comparable in the two groups, but patients in the PARPi group with BRCAm had a significantly better five-year OS than those in the placebo group (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.74). In addition, the adverse event rate (≥ grade 3) was significantly higher in the PARPi group than in the placebo group (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.63). In patients with newly diagnosed advanced EOC, PARPi maintenance therapy was significantly more effective in terms of survival than no PARPi treatment. However, the risk of serious adverse events was higher for patients who received PARPi maintenance therapy.
| S-EPMC10655973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynaecological cancer among women worldwide, with the 5-year survival rate ranging between 30 and 40%. Due to the asymptomatic nature of the condition, it is more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage, requiring an aggressive therapeutic approach. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) along with systemic chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin has been the mainstay of the treatment in the frontline management of EOC. In recent years, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by interval CRS has become an important strategy for the management of advanced EOC. Due to the high rate of recurrence, the oncology community has begun to shift its focus to molecular-targeted agents and maintenance therapy in the frontline settings. The rationale for maintenance therapy is to delay the progression or relapse of the disease, as long as possible after first-line treatment, irrespective of the amount of residual disease. Tumours with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) including BReast CAncer gene (BRCA) mutations are found to be sensitive to polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and understanding of HRD status has become important in the frontline setting. PARP inhibitors are reported to provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival and have an acceptable safety profile. PARP inhibitors have also been found to act regardless of BRCA status. Recently, PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy in the frontline settings showed encouraging results in EOC; however, the results from further trials and survival data from ongoing trials are awaited for understanding the role of this pathway in treatment of EOC. This review discusses an overview of maintenance strategies in newly diagnosed EOC along with considerations for maintenance therapy in EOC with a focus on PARP inhibitors.
| S-EPMC9331490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) exhibit improved progression-free survival (PFS) when administered concurrent with chemotherapy and/or maintenance therapy, but no study has directly compared their effects. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and PARPi in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer using a network meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, Medline, and Embase databases were searched, and five randomized trials assessing PFS in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer treated with either bevacizumab, PARPi, or placebo or no additional agent (controls) were identified. PFS was compared in the overall population with ovarian cancer, women with a BRCA1/2 mutation (BRCAm) and women with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD). Adverse events (grade ≥ 3) were compared in all populations of the included studies.ResultsPARPi improved PFS significantly more than bevacizumab in women with a BRCAm (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.60) and with HRD (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50-0.87). However, in the overall population with ovarian cancer, no significant difference in PFS was observed between women treated with PARPi and those treated with bevacizumab. PARPi exhibited the highest surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities value as the most effective treatment for PFS (PARPi vs. bevacizumab: 98% vs. 52% in the overall population with ovarian cancer; 100% vs. 50% in women with BRCAm; 100% vs. 50% in women with HRD). For adverse events, the risk of all treatments was similar. However, PARPi had a higher adverse risk than the control group (relative risk 2.14; 95% CI 1.40-3.26).ConclusionsIn women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, PARPi might be more effective in terms of PFS compared to bevacizumab. The risk of serious adverse events was similar for PARPi and bevacizumab.
| S-EPMC8969379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the efficacy and safety of poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (including their different types) as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and to explore whether this therapy produces a survival benefit in a subgroup population with specific clinical characteristics.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and relevant clinical research registry platforms on October 1, 2019, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PARP inhibitors with placebo in women (aged ≥ 18 years) with newly diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer.ResultsWe identified four RCTs with 3,070 participants. Compared with placebo, PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy showed a clinically significant benefit on progression free survival (PFS) in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) positive population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.53). In contrast, no clear differences were identified between the groups in the HRD negative population (HR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.67-1.03). Further, there was no clear difference between the groups in terms of other outcomes (overall survival, health-related quality of life, and adverse events).ConclusionsPARP inhibitor maintenance therapy significantly prolongs the PFS of patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, especially in HRD positive patients. The diagnostic test used to determine HRD status plays an important role in guiding PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy. Compared with placebo, the effect of PARP inhibitors on ovarian cancer was probably not affected by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage status, response to first-line chemotherapy, and residual macroscopic disease after debulking surgery.
| S-EPMC8277645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent data have demonstrated substantial efficacy with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as treatment and/or maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Here, we review efficacy and safety results from four recent Phase III trials in newly diagnosed EOC: SOLO1 (olaparib), PAOLA-1 (olaparib in combination with bevacizumab), PRIMA (niraparib), and VELIA (veliparib). The implications of these data for current clinical practice and areas for future research are discussed, including ongoing studies of targeted agents in the newly diagnosed setting. Data from SOLO1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA confirm the benefit of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, veliparib) for women with newly diagnosed EOC. The greatest benefit was seen in patients with a BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation or in the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-test positive subgroup. These four well-conducted studies have generated practice-changing data. However, deciding how to apply these results in clinical practice is challenging, and substantial differences in trial design impede cross-trial comparisons. Recent PARP inhibitor approvals (olaparib, niraparib) in the newly diagnosed EOC setting have provided new maintenance treatment options for a broader patient population. The results of these studies call for personalized medicine based on biomarker profile and other factors, including tolerability, cost considerations, and physician and patient preference. Important areas for future research include appropriate use of both BRCA mutation and HRD testing to inform magnitude of PARP inhibitor benefit as well as exploring further options for patients who are HRD-test negative and for those who become PARP inhibitor resistant.
| S-EPMC8616471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, bevacizumab and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, alone or in combination, have shown benefit as maintenance treatment following platinum-based chemotherapy. However, no trials have compared a PARP inhibitor plus bevacizumab versus a PARP inhibitor, or a PARP inhibitor versus bevacizumab. We performed an unanchored population-adjusted indirect treatment comparison to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of maintenance treatments for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsAnalyses were performed using aggregate data from the PRIMA trial and patient-level data from a subset of patients from the PAOLA-1 trial that met surgery and staging eligibility criteria of PRIMA. Propensity weights were used to match baseline characteristics of the PAOLA-1 subset to those of the PRIMA population. Analysis was performed in overall (biomarker-unselected) and homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD)-positive populations.ResultsA total of 595/806 (266/387 HRD-positive) PAOLA-1 patients were included. After matching, the effective sample size for PAOLA-1 was 532 (242 HRD-positive). Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 43% [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.69] versus niraparib and by 40% (HR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49-0.74) versus bevacizumab in the biomarker-unselected population and by 43% (HR 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) and 60% (HR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.29-0.55), respectively, in the HRD-positive population. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits of maintenance niraparib and bevacizumab arms were comparable in the biomarker-unselected population (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.87-1.32); however, niraparib showed a 30% reduced risk compared with bevacizumab (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) in the HRD-positive population.ConclusionsIn biomarker-unselected and HRD-positive patients, combination treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment improves PFS for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer compared with either bevacizumab or niraparib alone. Results are hypothesis generating and could guide randomised trial design.
| S-EPMC8488507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The efficacy of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) as a maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the benefits and safety of PARPi maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which assessed the efficacy of PARPi as a maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, which was assessed using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Progression-free survival was extracted independently, and the pooled results were used to compare the prognoses of patients who received PARPi maintenance therapy and those who received a placebo. Results: Three RCTs, SOLO1, VELIA/GOG-3005, and PRIMA, which included 1,881 patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer, were included in the meta-analysis. The overall analysis showed that PARPi maintenance therapy significantly increased PFS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.80; P = 0.004) compared to placebo. Subgroup analyses confirmed this result. We also observed an improved PFS in patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < 0.001) and in patients with BRCA mutations (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57; P < 0.001). Moreover, there were no significant differences in health-related quality of life between the PARPi and placebo groups. Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer who received PARPi maintenance therapy had a better prognosis than did those who received a placebo. Moreover, no significant changes in health-related quality of life were seen in PARPi-treated individuals.
| S-EPMC7417336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to assess disease resectability in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis from a health care payer perspective was performed comparing two strategies: (1) a standard evaluation strategy, where a conventional approach to treatment planning was used to assign patients to either primary cytoreduction (PCS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval cytoreduction (NACT), and (2) a laparoscopy strategy, where patients considered candidates for PCS would undergo laparoscopy to triage between PCS or NACT based on the laparoscopy-predicted likelihood of complete gross resection. A microsimulation model was developed that included diagnostic work-up, surgical and adjuvant treatment, perioperative complications, and progression-free survival (PFS). Model parameters were derived from the literature and our published data. Effectiveness was defined in quality-adjusted PFS years. Results were tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000 per year of quality-adjusted PFS.ResultsThe laparoscopy strategy led to additional costs (average additional cost $7034) but was also more effective (average 4.1 months of additional quality-adjusted PFS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of laparoscopy was $20,376 per additional year of quality-adjusted PFS. The laparoscopy strategy remained cost-effective even as the cost added by laparoscopy increased. The benefit of laparoscopy was influenced by mitigation of serious complications and their associated costs. The laparoscopy strategy was cost-effective across a range of WTP thresholds.ConclusionsPerforming laparoscopy is a cost-effective way to improve primary treatment planning for patients with untreated advanced ovarian cancer.
| S-EPMC8247119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of prolonging temozolomide (TMZ) maintenance beyond six cycles in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) remains a topic of discussion. We investigated the effects of prolonged TMZ maintenance on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Patients and methodsIn this retrospective single-center cohort study, we included patients with GBM who were treated with radiation therapy with concomitant and adjuvant TMZ. For analysis, patients were considered who either completed six TMZ maintenance cycles (group B), continued with TMZ therapy beyond six cycles (group C), or stopped TMZ maintenance therapy within the first six cycles (group A). Patients with progression during the first six TMZ maintenance cycles were excluded.ResultsClinical data from 107 patients were included for Kaplan-Meier analyses and 102 for Cox regressions. Median PFS times were 8.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.1-12.4) in group A, 13.7 months (95% CI 10.6-17.5) in group B, and 20.9 months (95% CI 15.2-43.5) in group C. At first progression, response rates of TMZ/lomustine rechallenge were 47% in group B and 13% in group C. Median OS times were 12.7 months (95% CI 10.3-16.8) in group A, 25.2 months (95% CI 17.7-55.5) in group B, and 28.6 months (95% CI 24.4-open) in group C. Nevertheless, multivariate Cox regression for patients in group C compared with group B that accounted for imbalances of other risk factors showed no different relative risk (RR) for OS (RR 0.77, p = .46).ConclusionOur data do not support a general extension of TMZ maintenance therapy beyond six cycles. The Oncologist 2017;22:570-575 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Radiation therapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) maintenance therapy is still the standard of care in patients below the age of 65 years in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. However, in clinical practice, many centers continue TMZ maintenance therapy beyond six cycles. The impact of this continuation is controversial and has not yet been addressed in prospective randomized clinical trials. We compared the effect of more than six cycles of TMZ in comparison with exactly six cycles on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by multivariate analysis and found a benefit in PFS but not OS. Thus, our data do not suggest prolonging TMZ maintenance therapy beyond six cycles, which should be considered in neurooncological practice.
| S-EPMC5423504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The incidence and mortality rates of ovarian cancer are increasing globally. Ovarian cancer is diagnosed at an advanced stage in 80% of women. After standard, platinum-based, front-line chemotherapy, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents are successfully employed as maintenance strategies for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. Landmark clinical studies, including SOLO-1, PAOLA-1, PRIMA, and VELIA, have provided crucial insights on optimizing first-line maintenance treatment using PARP inhibitors. A group of ovarian cancer experts, primarily from low- and middle-income countries, met in September 2019 to discuss new developments for the first-line treatment of ovarian cancer and its implications. Key implications of the evolving clinical data included: (1) olaparib or niraparib maintenance therapy appears to be the preferred choice for patients with BRCA1/2 mutations; hence, BRCA testing is beneficial in identifying these patients; (2) niraparib monotherapy and olaparib in combination with bevacizumab have demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients; (3) bevacizumab, niraparib alone, or observation can be an alternative for HRD-negative patients; (4) further data is warranted to explore the role of PARP inhibitors in treating HRD-negative, ovarian cancer patients to confirm findings of the exploratory analysis of PRIMA; (5) PARP inhibitors may be beneficial for stage IV ovarian cancer patients with inoperable disease and patients with prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and (6) there is an urgent need to increase awareness in both clinicians and patients on BRCA and HRD testing for optimizing treatment decision-making and improving clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer patients. In clinical medicine, the limited availability of family history (FH) information and the complexity of FH criteria has hampered the implementation of BRCA testing. Moreover, many cancer patients with BRCA mutations are not tested because they do not meet the criteria for FH. Consequently, BRCA testing in many high income countries, including the US and Australia, is underused and used inappropriately, which has resulted in the loss of valuable opportunities for better cancer management and cancer prevention.
| S-EPMC9263863 | biostudies-literature