Abstract P3-12-01: Value-based approach to treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: Examining the evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Outcomes of HER2-positive breast cancer have improved significantly with use of targeted therapies. Survival in both early (EBC) and metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has improved along with gains in quality of life. With increasing costs of cancer care, it became imperative that health systems evaluate cost-effectiveness and value provided by new therapies. Methods: We conducted a review of 'value' utilizing the ASCO 2015, ASCO 2016 (revised) and ESMO framework for all currently available HER2 targeted therapies. We performed a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of these therapies across the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic disease settings. We included economic evaluations from published literature and government agencies involved in drug-approval assessments from NICE (UK), pCODR (Canada), and PBAC (Australia). Results: 22 studies evaluating 1-year of trastuzumab (H) in EBC were identified. Of these, 17 found the regimen cost-effective (CE). Three of 22 plus an additional 1 evaluated 9 weeks H, all of which found it CE. NICE and PBAC determined adjuvant H to be CE, consistent with clinical benefit (Table 1). There are currently no academic CEAs of neoadjuvant pertuzumab (P). It has been evaluated in drug-approval processes by NICE and pCODR, both finding cost-effectiveness highly uncertain. In MBC, 6 studies evaluating H for first line were identified. The combination with chemotherapy was CE in 3 of 4 studies, whereas monotherapy and combination with anastrazole were not. A total of 9 studies evaluating lapatinib for MBC were identified. While it was CE combined with capecitabine for second line, in all other combinations it was not. Two studies evaluating P for MBC did not find the regimen CE, despite significant clinical benefit. However, PBAC considers the regimen CE and pCODR recommended funding based on net clinical benefit, whereas NICE did not. No academic CEAs of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in the literature were identified however cost-effectiveness in second line has been evaluated by pCODR, NICE and PBAC. All groups found it not CE, even with very high clinical benefit (Table 1). Table 1: ASCO Net Health Benefit (NHB), modified NHB (mNHB) and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Score (MCBS) for landmark trials in HER2+ breast cancer compared with cost-effectivenessStudySettingRegimenNHBmNHBMCBSCost-EffectiveNeoSphereEBC (Neoadjuvant)DH+/- P->surgery->FECNA*NA*NA*-TRYPHAENA"DCH+P->surgeryNANANA-NSABP-B31/NCCTGN9831EBC (Adjuvant)AC-based chemo +/- H4828AYFinHer"FEC based chemo +/- H x 9 weeksNA*NA*NA*YHERA"Chemo +/- 1y H3226AYSlamon et alMBC (1st line)TH vs T1617.72YCLEOPATRA"DHP vs. DH32324NTanDEM"Anastrozole +/- H2213.93NJohnston et al"Letrozole +/- Lapatinib5513.61NEMILIAMBC (2nd line)T-DM1 vs. lapatinib + cape4246.45NEGF100151MBC (>/=2nd line)Cape + lapatinib vs. cape alone1629.44N* = Not significant Conclusion: While there is consistent value provided by Her2 targeted therapies, there is generally lack of support for these in MBC based on cost-effectiveness analysis. We need to work towards a model that integrates value, clinical benefit and cost to implement new therapies in cancer, including HER2 positive breast cancer. Citation Format: Nixon NA, Hannouf M, Verma S. Value-based approach to treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: Examining the evidence [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-12-01.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,107 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».