scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as second-line treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the People’s Republic of China

2017 ◽  
Vol Volume 7 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Li ◽  
Hong Ye Ren ◽  
Juanjuan Zhang ◽  
Peng Dong ◽  
Yan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor ◽  
Stromal Tumor ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The People

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness In The Second-Line Treatment Of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (Nsclc) In The Us

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A457-A458 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Graham ◽  
H Knox ◽  
LM Hess ◽  
M Jen ◽  
G Cuyun Carter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
The Us

Verification of imatinib cost-effectiveness in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor in British Columbia (VINCE-BC study)

2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 105-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent H Mabasa ◽  
Suzanne CM Taylor ◽  
Christina CY Chu ◽  
Veronika Moravan ◽  
Karissa Johnston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor ◽  
Stromal Tumor

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Eribulin Mesylate as a Treatment for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Spain: Management in the Later Line of Therapy

10.36469/9834 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-193
Author(s):  
Gabriel Tremblay ◽  
Unnati Majethia ◽  
Ilias Kontoudis ◽  
Jesús De Rosendo
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Background: Two thirds (62%) of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in Western Europe have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative disease, for which anthracyclines and taxanes are recommended as first-line treatments, followed by microtubule-targeting agents such as capecitabine, vinorelbine and/or eribulin. The study objective was to compare the cost-effectiveness of eribulin in Spain as a second-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC with its current status as a third-line treatment for patients who have received capecitabine. Methods: A Markov model was developed from the perspective of the Spanish healthcare system. The model had three health states: Stable; Progression and Death. In Stable, patients received eribulin or: capecitabine and vinorelbine for HER2-negative patients; primary treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) for post-capecitabine patients. In Progression, all patients received secondary TPC. Model inputs were overall survival, progression-free survival and costs relating to chemotherapies, grade 3/4 adverse events and healthcare utilization. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify uncertainty. Results: As second-line treatment, Eribulin was associated with a greater incremental benefit in life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than capecitabine and vinorelbine. Erubilin as third-line treatment was associated with greater benefit in life years (LYs) and QALYs than TPC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for eribulin were higher in the second-line than the third-line setting in terms of LYs (€35,149 versus €24,884) and QALYs (€37,152 versus €35,484). In both settings, deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER is most sensitive to the eribulin price. Conclusion: Eribulin is cost-effective as second-line treatment for HER2-negative MBC patients in Spain; albeit, slightly less so than as third-line treatment for MBC patients who have received capecitabine (an ICER per QALY difference of €1,668). This difference may fall within the margin of error for the model and could potentially be addressed by a minor reduction in the eribulin price.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Regorafenib as second line therapy for imatinib-resistant gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST): A phase II study

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. vi88
Author(s):  
Yoichi Naito ◽  
Toshihiko Doi ◽  
Tsuyoshi Takahashi ◽  
Toshihiro Kudo ◽  
Narikazu Boku ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Stromal Tumor ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Imatinib Resistant

scholarly journals Switch Control Inhibition of KIT and PDGFRA in Patients With Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Phase I Study of Ripretinib

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (28) ◽  
pp. 3294-3303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filip Janku ◽  
Albiruni R. Abdul Razak ◽  
Ping Chi ◽  
Michael C. Heinrich ◽  
Margaret von Mehren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Stromal Tumor ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Switch Control ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Advanced Gist

PURPOSE In advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), there is an unmet need for therapies that target both primary and secondary mutations of pathogenic KIT/PDGFRA oncoproteins. Ripretinib is a novel switch-control kinase inhibitor designed to inhibit a wide range of KIT and PDGFRA mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS This first-in-human, to our knowledge, phase I study of ripretinib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02571036) included a dose-escalation phase and subsequent expansion phase at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Eligible patients included those with advanced GIST, intolerant to or experienced progression on ≥ 1 line of systemic therapy, and other advanced malignancies. Safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), and preliminary antitumor activity were evaluated. RESULTS At data cutoff (August 31, 2019), 258 patients (n = 184 GIST) were enrolled, with 68 patients in the dose-escalation phase. Three DLTs were reported: grade 3 lipase increase (n = 2; 100 mg and 200 mg twice a day) and grade 4 increased creatine phosphokinase (n = 1; 150 mg once daily). MTD was not reached (maximum dose evaluated, 200 mg twice a day); 150 mg once daily was established as the RP2D. The most frequent (> 30%) treatment-emergent adverse events in patients with GIST receiving ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 142) were alopecia (n = 88 [62.0%]), fatigue (n = 78 [54.9%]), myalgia (n = 69 [48.6%]), nausea (n = 65 [45.8%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (n = 62 [43.7%]), constipation (n = 56 [39.4%]), decreased appetite (n = 48 [33.8%]), and diarrhea (n = 47 [33.1%]). Objective response rate (confirmed) of 11.3% (n = 16/142) ranging from 7.2% (n = 6/83; fourth line or greater) to 19.4% (n = 6/31; second line) and median progression-free survival ranging from 5.5 months (fourth line or greater) to 10.7 months (second line), on the basis of investigator assessment, were observed. CONCLUSION Ripretinib is a well-tolerated, novel inhibitor of KIT and PDGFRA mutant kinases with promising activity in patients with refractory advanced GIST.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document