Role of maintenance strategies in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis protocol
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Different maintenance strategies have shown efficacy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, but without drawing any conclusion on which strategy is preferred. Therefore, we will conduct a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to investigate maintenance strategies containing chemotherapy, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and anti-angiogenesis therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Methods and analysis
The search strategy to identify potentially relevant studies will include hand searches in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library and Web of science. The primary outcome is progression-free survival, defined as the date of randomisation to the date of progression or death. The secondary outcome is overall survival (calculated from the time from randomisation to death from any cause), grade 3–4 haematological and non-haematological toxicities, quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Two steps of meta-analysis will be carried out, traditional pair-wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Methodological quality, risk of bias and the strength of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be proposed to assess the quality of RCTs. Heterogeneity, publication bias, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be explored. Ethics and dissemination
The purpose of our study is to perform a comprehensive efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness analysis of all maintenance strategies in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The results will be disseminated through international conference reports and peer-reviewed manuscripts. Ethics approval is not required for network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. PROSPERO registration number
CRD42021231814.
SUBMITTER: Hu Q
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8718482 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite recent improvements in the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK, deaths from CVD are relatively high compared with other high-income countries. An estimated 7 million people in the UK are living with CVD, and the healthcare cost is approximately £11 billion annually. In more than 90% of cases, the risk of a first heart attack is thought to be related to modifiable risk factors including smoking, poor diet, lipidemia, high blood pressure, inactivity, obesity and excess alcohol consumption. The aim of the study is to synthesise evidence for the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different interventions for the primary prevention of CVD. METHODS:We will systematically search databases (for example, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library) and the reference lists of previous systematic reviews for randomised controlled trials that assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of any form of intervention aimed at adult populations for the primary prevention of CVD, including but not limited to lipid lowering medications, blood pressure lowering medications, antiplatelet agents, nutritional supplements, dietary interventions, health promotion programmes, physical activity interventions or structural and policy interventions. Interventions may or may not be targeted at high-risk groups. Publications from any year will be considered for inclusion. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes will be cardiovascular diseases related mortality, major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease, incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years gained. If data permits, we will use network meta-analysis to compare and rank effectiveness of different interventions, and test effect modification of intervention effectiveness using subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses. DISCUSSION:The results will be important for policymakers when making decisions between multiple possible alternative strategies to prevent CVD. Compared to results from existing multiple separate pairwise meta-analyses, this overarching synthesis of all relevant work will enhance decision-making. The findings will be crucial to inform evidence-based priorities and guidelines for policies and planning prevention strategies of CVD. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019123940.
| S-EPMC7204030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS).ResultsAssuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.
| S-EPMC7726632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the potential cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in medically frail patients undergoing surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).MethodsWe created a cost-effectiveness model evaluating the impact of prehabilitation on a cohort of medically frail women undergoing primary surgical intervention for EOC. Cost was assessed from the healthcare system perspective via (1) inpatient charges from 2018-2019 institutional Diagnostic Related Grouping data for surgeries with and without major complications; (2) nursing facility costs from published market surveys. Major complication and non-home discharge rates were estimated from the literature. Based on published pilot studies, prehabilitation was determined to decrease these rates. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for cost per life year saved utilized a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/life year. Modeling was performed with TreeAge software.ResultsIn a cohort of 4,415 women, prehabilitation would cost $371.1 Million (M) versus $404.9 M for usual care, a cost saving of $33.8 M/year. Cost of care per patient with prehabilitation was $84,053; usual care was $91,713. When analyzed for cost-effectiveness, usual care was dominated by prehabilitation, indicating prehabilitation was associated with both increased effectiveness and decreased cost compared with usual care. Sensitivity analysis showed prehabilitation was more cost effective up to a cost of intervention of $9,418/patient.ConclusionPrehabilitation appears to be a cost-saving method to decrease healthcare system costs via two improved outcomes: lower complication rates and decreased care facility requirements. It represents a novel strategy to optimize healthcare efficiency. Prospective studies should be performed to better characterize these interventions in medically frail patients with EOC.
| S-EPMC8550928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesClinical 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsPARPi-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.ConclusionsThis 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.
| S-EPMC8086124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 2023, the final PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) survival data were published documenting the benefits of therapy consisting of olaparib plus bevacizumab for patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) as a function of molecular status. In light of these new data, the present study was conducted with the goal of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for the treatment of the overall AOC patient population and for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations, homologous recombination proficiency (HRD)-positive, or patients not harboring BRCA mutations AOC from a US payers perspective.MethodsA Markov state-transition model with a 15-year time horizon was used to evaluate outcomes of patients administered Olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were evaluated in this study in light of a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The stability of the established model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses.ResultsRelative to bevacizumab alone, Olaparib plus bevacizumab was associated with mean incremental costs and QALYs (LYs) of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab were $293,656 and 1.85 (2.16), $265,668 and 3.34 (4.02), $242,746 and 1.71 (2.06), and $193,792 and 0.97 (1.14) for overall, BRCA mutation-positive, HRD-positive, and HRD-positive BRCA mutation-negative AOC patients, respectively. The corresponding ICER values for these patient subgroups were $158,729 ($136,218), $79,434 ($66,120), $141,636 ($117,747), and $200,595 ($169,733) per QALY (LY) gained Utility value and the price of olaparib were identified in sensitivity analyses as the primary factors influencing these results.ConclusionAt current pricing levels, maintenance treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment may represent a cost-effective therapeutic option for BRCA mutations and HRD-positive AOC patients in the USA.
| S-EPMC10441725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOvarian cancer (OC) is the eighth most common cancer among women, and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is present in approximately 50% of these patients. For this group, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are more likely to be effective. The aim of the study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of HRD testing versus BRCA testing (which identifies mutations present only in 25% of patients) in Italy to optimize the treatment management, possibly with PARP inhibitors.MethodsA cost-effectiveness partition survival model was developed to estimate the expected costs and outcomes (life years, LYs; quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) with lifetime horizon of HRD testing versus BRCA testing alone in women with high-grade serous or endometrioid advanced ovarian cancer. The option to perform the tests in sequence, that is, the BRCA test followed by the HRD test, in patients with BRCA-negative test was also considered, and the model accounted for the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective in Italy. The treatments represented the best available options according to the initial test results and according to PARP inhibitors available in Italy. A 3% discount rate was applied. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model results.ResultsHRD testing was shown to be a cost-effective strategy compared to BRCA testing (incremental cost-utility ratio 22,610€/QALY) and a cost-saving strategy compared to the sequence of tests. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the HRD test is cost-effective compared to BRCA testing in 98.5% of model simulations considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000€/QALY.ConclusionThe identification of genetic anomalies in patients with advanced OC is a costly process. Regardless, HRD upfront testing compared to BRCA testing had a cost-effective profile, allowing the efficient use of healthcare resources and better life expectancy and quality of life for patients.
| S-EPMC10960911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system.MethodsAnalysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model's stability.ResultsThe ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis.ConclusionAt current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.
| S-EPMC10792217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOvarian cancer is one of the most common cancer among women in Malaysia. Patients with ovarian cancer are often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Despite initial response to surgery and chemotherapy, most patients will experience a relapse. Olaparib has been reported have promising effects among BRCA mutated ovarian cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance therapy for BRCA ovarian cancer in Malaysia.MethodsWe developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties.ResultsIn Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold.ConclusionThe use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.
| S-EPMC10833573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of selected malaria control interventions in the context of reaching the millennium development goals for malaria. DESIGN: Generalised cost effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: Efficacy data came from the literature and authors' calculations supported by expert opinion. Quantities for resource inputs came from the literature and from expert opinion; prices came from the WHO-CHOICE database. METHODS: Costs were assessed in year 2000 international dollars, and effects were assessed as disability adjusted life years averted by a 10 year implementation programme. Analysis was restricted to sub-Saharan regions where the most deadly form of malaria, Plasmodium falciparum, is most prevalent. The impact on population health for various interventions, and their combinations, was evaluated at selected coverage levels by using a state-transition model. Sensitivity analysis was done for age weights and discounting. RESULTS: High coverage with artemisinin based combination treatments was found to be the most cost effective strategy for control of malaria in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSIONS: A much larger infusion of resources than those currently available is needed to make headway in the fight to roll back malaria. On cost effectiveness grounds, in most areas in sub-Saharan Africa greater coverage with highly effective combination treatments should be the cornerstone of malaria control. However, treatment alone can achieve less than half the total benefit obtainable through a combination of interventions-scaling up the use of impregnated mosquito nets or indoor spraying with insecticides is also critical. Intermittent presumptive treatment of pregnant women can bring a small but important additional health gain at relatively low cost.
| S-EPMC1298848 | biostudies-other
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