Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis

被引:13
作者
Barrington, David A. [1 ]
Tubbs, Crystal [2 ]
Smith, Haller J. [3 ]
Straughn, J. Michael, Jr. [3 ]
Senter, Leigha [4 ]
Cohn, David E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Gynecol Oncol, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Pharm, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Div Gynecol Oncol, Obstet & Gynecol, Birmingham HCOP, Birmingham, AL USA
[4] Ohio State Univ, Human Genet, Internal Med, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
关键词
ovarian cancer; ovarian neoplasms; gynecology; gynecologic surgical procedures; STATE UTILITY VALUES; INTRAPERITONEAL CISPLATIN; PRIMARY SURGERY; DOUBLE-BLIND; THERAPY; CHEMOTHERAPY; BEVACIZUMAB; OLAPARIB; QUALITY; CARE;
D O I
10.1136/ijgc-2020-001550
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objectives Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Methods Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboringBRCAmutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients withoutBRCAmutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved. Results For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for theBRCA,homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively. Conclusions For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency andBRCAmutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.
引用
收藏
页码:1569 / 1575
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]   Final overall survival and safety analysis of OCEANS, a phase 3 trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer [J].
Aghajanian, Carol ;
Goff, Barbara ;
Nycum, Lawrence R. ;
Wang, Yan V. ;
Husain, Amreen ;
Blank, Stephanie V. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2015, 139 (01) :10-16
[2]   Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer [J].
Armstrong, DK ;
Bundy, B ;
Wenzel, L ;
Huang, HQ ;
Baergen, R ;
Lele, S ;
Copeland, LJ ;
Walker, JL ;
Burger, RA .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2006, 354 (01) :34-43
[3]   Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies for Incorporating Bevacizumab Into the Primary Treatment of Ovarian Cancer [J].
Barnett, Jason C. ;
Secord, Angeles Alvarez ;
Cohn, David E. ;
Leath, Charles A., III ;
Myers, Evan R. ;
Havrilesky, Laura J. .
CANCER, 2013, 119 (20) :3653-3661
[4]   Cost of Care for the Initial Management of Ovarian Cancer [J].
Bercow, Alexandra S. ;
Chen, Ling ;
Chatterjee, Sudeshna ;
Tergas, Ana I. ;
Hou, June Y. ;
Burke, William M. ;
Ananth, Cande V. ;
Neugut, Alfred I. ;
Hershman, Dawn L. ;
Wright, Jason D. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 130 (06) :1269-1275
[5]   Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons [J].
Bertram, Melanie Y. ;
Lauer, Jeremy A. ;
De Joncheere, Kees ;
Edejer, Tessa ;
Hutubessy, Raymond ;
Kieny, Marie-Paule ;
Hill, Suzanne R. .
BULLETIN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, 2016, 94 (12) :925-930
[6]   Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol on gastrointestinal function in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy [J].
Boitano, Teresa K. L. ;
Smith, Haller J. ;
Rushton, Tullia ;
Johnston, Mary C. ;
Lawson, Prentiss ;
Leath, Charles A., III ;
Xhaja, Anisa ;
Guthrie, Meredith P. ;
Straughn, J. Michael, Jr. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 151 (02) :282-286
[7]   Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel versus intravenous carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for Stage III ovarian cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Bristow, Robert E. ;
Santillan, Antonio ;
Salani, Ritu ;
Diaz-Montes, Teresa P. ;
Giuntoli, Robert L., II ;
Meisner, Benjamin C. ;
Armstrong, Deborah K. ;
Frick, Kevin D. .
GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2007, 106 (03) :476-481
[8]   Incorporation of Bevacizumab in the Primary Treatment of Ovarian Cancer [J].
Burger, Robert A. ;
Brady, Mark F. ;
Bookman, Michael A. ;
Fleming, Gini F. ;
Monk, Bradley J. ;
Huang, Helen ;
Mannel, Robert S. ;
Homesley, Howard D. ;
Fowler, Jeffrey ;
Greer, Benjamin E. ;
Boente, Matthew ;
Birrer, Michael J. ;
Liang, Sharon X. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2011, 365 (26) :2473-2483
[9]   On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review [J].
Cameron, David ;
Ubels, Jasper ;
Norstrom, Fredrik .
GLOBAL HEALTH ACTION, 2018, 11 (01)
[10]   Using threshold values for cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in healthcare decisions [J].
Cleemput, Irina ;
Neyt, Mattias ;
Thiry, Nancy ;
De Laet, Chris ;
Leys, Mark .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2011, 27 (01) :71-76