Monika Parisi

Comparative effectiveness and resource utilization of nab -paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a US community setting

Introduction Despite a clinically relevant, statistically significant survival benefit with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX vs single-agent gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC), little is known regarding their real-world effectiveness. We analyzed patients with mPC using a nationally representative electronic medical records database to address this unmet need. Methods This retrospective analysis of the Navigating Cancer database compared outcomes among patients who received first-line nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, or gemcitabine for mPC. Effectiveness, safety, and supportive care use were examined. nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine was the reference for statistical comparisons. Results Baseline characteristics were similar except age (oldest patients were in the gemcitabine cohort followed by nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, then FOLFIRINOX). Patients receiving nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (n=122) demonstrated similar time to treatment discontinuation (TTD; median, 3.4 vs 3.8 months; P=0.947) and database persistence (DP; median, 8.6 vs 8.6 months; P=0.534) vs FOLFIRINOX (n=80); however, TTD (median, 3.4 vs 2.2 months; P<0.001) and DP (median, 8.6 vs 5.3 months; P=0.030) were significantly longer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine (n=46). There were more any-grade adverse events with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine vs nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (95% or 89% vs 84%, respectively). Conclusion This real-world analysis confirms the phase III MPACT trial findings and demonstrates that nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine has effectiveness similar to that of FOLFIRINOX but greater tolerability for treating mPC despite younger patients being in the FOLFIRINOX cohort. These findings support nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as an appropriate first-line treatment option for patients with mPC.

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 (

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

16,628 vs

Comparative effectiveness of early-line nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) versus eribulin in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): A U.S. real-world analysis.

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

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

1995 vs

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

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.

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

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.

The use of real-world data to examine comparative effectiveness research (CER) and treatment patterns in HER2-negative and triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC): A systematic literature review.

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.