Corey Pelletier

Comparison of treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX

ABSTRACT Background: We compared real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and cost of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with first-line nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin). Methods: This was a retrospective study of inpatient and hospital-based outpatient data in the United States. Primary endpoints included median time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and total cost of care per patient per month. Secondary endpoints included supportive care costs and hospitalization rate and length. Results: Overall, 345 patients were included (nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, n = 182; FOLFIRINOX, n = 163). Median TTD was significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX (4.3 vs 2.8 months; P = .0009). Mean acquisition cost was higher with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (

Comparison of treatment patterns and economic outcomes among metastatic pancreatic cancer patients initiated on nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX

10,643 vs

Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab -paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a US community-based real-world analysis

6549; P = .0043), but mean total cost of care was lower (

Comparative effectiveness research in renal cell carcinoma: Lenvatinib with everolimus as a potential new treatment option.

16,628 vs

PS01.79: Epidemiology and Characteristics of US Veterans with NSCLC Using US Veterans Affairs (VA) Database: Topic: Medical Oncology

19,936; P = .1740). Supportive care cost was significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (

Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer

1995 vs

Outcomes research examining treatments, quality of life and costs in HER2-negative and triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: a systematic literature review

6456; P < .0001). Hospitalization rate and length were both significantly lower with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. Conclusions: Despite higher acquisition costs with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX-treated patients had higher total costs driven by supportive care. Toxicity-related costs and drug acquisition costs should be considered when evaluating total cost of care.

Clinical Outcomes with First-Line Chemotherapy in a Large Retrospective Study of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a US Community Oncology Setting

ABSTRACT Background: The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is substantial while treatment options are limited. Little is known about the treatment patterns and healthcare costs among mPC patients who initiated first-line gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-P + G) and FOLFIRINOX. Methods: The MarketScan® claims databases were used to identify adults with ≥2 claims for pancreatic cancer, 1 claim for a secondary malignancy, completed ≥1 cycle of nab-P + G or FOLFIRINOX during 4/1/2013 and 3/31/2015, and had continuous plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and 3 months after the first-line treatment. Duration of therapy, per patient per month (PPPM) costs of total healthcare, mPC-related treatment, and supportive care were measured during first-line therapy. Results: 550 mPC patients met selection criteria (nab-P + G, n = 294; FOLFIRINOX, n = 256). There was no difference in duration of therapy (p = 0.60) between nab-P + G and FOLFIRINOX. Compared with FOLFIRINOX, patients with nab-P + G had higher chemotherapy drug costs but lower treatment administration costs and supportive care costs (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients treated with nab-P + G (vs FOLFIRINOX) had similar treatment duration but lower costs of outpatient prescriptions, treatment administration and supportive care. Lower supportive care costs in the nab-P + G cohort were mainly driven by lower utilization of pegfilgrastim and anti-emetics.

Treatment outcomes with first-line (1L) nab-Paclitaxel + gemcitabine (AG) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC).

Background Real-world analyses of treatments for patients with metastatic breast cancer are limited. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer using data from an electronic medical record database from community practices across the USA. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using fully de-identified data from an independent US electronic medical record platform of patients with metastatic breast cancer initiating single-agent nab-paclitaxel or paclitaxel as a first- or second-line treatment from December 1, 2010 to October 6, 2014. The clinical efficacy objectives were time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and time to next treatment (TTNT). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with 2 types of metastatic breast cancer as follows: 1) hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative, and 2) triple-negative disease. Results This analysis included 925 patients. Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel had significantly longer TTD (median 4.2 vs. 2.8 months, P<0.0001) and TTNT (median 6.0 vs. 4.2 months, P<0.0001); similar outcomes were observed for patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative disease. Compared with paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel was associated with significantly longer TTD in patients with triple-negative disease. nab-Paclitaxel was associated with significantly less all-grade neuropathy, anemia, pain, and diarrhea than paclitaxel. Antiemetic and antihistamine use were significantly less frequent with nab-paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel, whereas use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, hydrating agents, and bone-directed therapy to decrease skeletal-related events were more frequent. Conclusion nab-Paclitaxel demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness compared with paclitaxel when examining TTD and TTNT in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

Health care costs and treatment patterns among metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) patients (pts) initiating first-line (1L) on nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-P+G) or FOLFIRINOX (FFX).

27 Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common type of kidney cancer and represents about 90% of all kidney cancers. As comprehensive comparison of the efficacy associated with mRCC treatments is not available, the goal of this research was to provide a comparative effectiveness analysis including overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) for first and second line treatments. METHODS Systematic literature review yielded the following randomized active-controlled studies: lenvatinib + everolimus (LEN+EVE) versus everolimus (EVE), axinitib (AXI) versus sorafenib (SOR), cabozantinib (CAB) versus EVE, nivolumab (NIV) versus EVE, and pazopanib (PAZ) versus sunitinib (SUN). In addition, placebo-controlled studies were identified for EVE, PAZ, and SOR. An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed on OS and PFS hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS Scenario A presents the HR and confidence intervals (95% CI) generated with ITC of all treatments against EVE. In scenario B, the HR of LEN + EVE are compared to all treatment options. Only LEN + EVE and CAB demonstrated significance against EVE for both OS and PFS. LEN + EVE proved to be significant against EVE, PAZ, SOR, SUN, AXI and NIV for PFS and against EVE, SOR and AXI for OS. The use of crossover trials in the network for the treatment compared to placebo remains a potential bias in the results. CONCLUSIONS Even if limitations exist regarding the use of ITC, the option of LEN+EVE demonstrated a strong comparative effectiveness profile for both OS and PFS. [Table: see text].