Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
PharmacoEconomics
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics 9/2016

01.09.2016 | Systematic Review

Use of Intermediate Endpoints in the Economic Evaluation of New Treatments for Advanced Cancer and Methods Adopted When Suitable Overall Survival Data are Not Available

verfasst von: Catherine Beauchemin, Marie-Ève Lapierre, Nathalie Letarte, Louise Yelle, Jean Lachaine

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 9/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

This study assessed the use of intermediate endpoints in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer and the methodological approaches adopted when overall survival (OS) data are unavailable or of limited use.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced cancer published between 2003 and 2013. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses expressed in cost per life-year gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year using an intermediate endpoint as an outcome measure were eligible. Characteristics of selected studies were extracted and comprised population, treatment of interest, comparator, line of treatment, study perspective, and time horizon. Use of intermediate endpoints and methods adopted when OS data were lacking were analyzed.

Results

In total, 7219 studies were identified and 100 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Intermediate endpoints mostly used were progression-free survival and time to progression, accounting for 92 % of included studies. OS data were unavailable for analysis in nearly 25 % of economic evaluations. In the absence of OS data, studies most commonly assumed an equal risk of death for all treatment groups. Other methods included use of indirect comparison based on numerous assumptions, use of a proxy for OS, consultation with clinical experts, and use of published external information from different treatment settings.

Conclusion

Intermediate endpoints are widely used in the economic evaluation of new treatments for advanced cancer in order to estimate OS. Currently, different methods are used in the absence of suitable OS data and the choice of an appropriate method depends on many factors including the data availability.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Lebwohl D, et al. Progression-free survival: gaining on overall survival as a gold standard and accelerating drug development. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):386–94.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Saad ED, Buyse M. Overall survival: patient outcome, therapeutic objective, clinical trial end point, or public health measure? J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1750–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zhuang SH, Xiu L, Elsayed YA. Overall survival: a gold standard in search of a surrogate: the value of progression-free survival and time to progression as end points of drug efficacy. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):395–400.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Pazdur R. Endpoints for assessing drug activity in clinical trials. Oncologist. 2008;13(Suppl 2):19–21.CrossRefPubMed
5.
US Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER): Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Guidance for Industry. Clinical Trial Endpoints for the Approval of Cancer Drugs and Biologics. Rockville: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2007. Available from: http://​www.​fda.​gov/​downloads/​Drugs/​Guidances/​ucm071590.​pdf. Accessed Dec 2015.
6.
7.
Booth CM, Eisenhauer EA. Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(10):1030–3.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Kay A, et al. Randomized controlled trials in the era of molecular oncology: methodology, biomarkers, and end points. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1646–51.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Saad ED, Katz A. Progression-free survival and time to progression as primary end points in advanced breast cancer: often used, sometimes loosely defined. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(3):460–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Davis S, Tappenden P, Cantrell A, A review of studies examining the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival in advanced or metastatic cancer—a report by the Decision Support Unit. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2012.
11.
Sridhara R, et al. Review of oncology and hematology drug product approvals at the US Food and Drug Administration between July 2005 and December 2007. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(4):230–43.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Conde-Estevez D, et al. An overview of randomized clinical trials in metastatic breast cancer: variables affecting regulatory drug approval. Anticancer Drugs. 2014;25(9):992–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Chabot I, Rocchi A. Oncology drug health technology assessment recommendations: Canadian versus UK experiences. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;6:357–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York; 2008.
15.
16.
Lewis G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of erlotinib versus docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the United Kingdom. J Int Med Res. 2010;38(1):9–21.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Carlson JJ, et al. The potential clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacogenomic approaches to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Value Health. 2009;12(1):20–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Carlson JJ, et al. Comparative clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer. 2008;61(3):405–15.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Lesnock JL, et al. Consolidation paclitaxel is more cost-effective than bevacizumab following upfront treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;122(3):473–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Le QA, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of lapatinib in HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(3):489–98.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Giuliani G, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab versus pemetrexed for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy. Lung Cancer. 2010;69(SUPPL. 1):S11–7.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zeng X, et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuation maintenance pemetrexed after cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: estimates from the perspective of the chinese health care system. Clin Ther. 2013;35(1):54–65.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Rocconi RP, et al. Role of chemotherapy for patients with recurrent platinum-resistant advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2006;107(3):536–43.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Spackman E, et al. Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(3):185–94.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Hoyle M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Value Health. 2013;16(2):288–96.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Asseburg C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy with cetuximab in patients with K-ras wild-type colorectal cancer presenting with initially unresectable metastases limited to the liver in a German setting. Clin Ther. 2011;33(4):482–97.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Benedict A, et al. An economic evaluation of docetaxel and paclitaxel regimens in metastatic breast cancer in the UK. PharmacoEconomics. 2009;27(10):847–59.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Benedict A, et al. Economic evaluation of new targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2011;108(5):665–72.PubMed
30.
Calvo Aller E, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of sunitinib as first-line targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol. 2011;13(12):869–77.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Karnon J, et al. A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of letrozole followed by tamoxifen versus tamoxifen followed by letrozole for postmenopausal advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(11):1629–33.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Tsutani K. Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX for metastatic colorectal cancer based on the NO16966 and NO16967 trials. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(1):12–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Reed SD, et al. Cost effectiveness of ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(13):2185–91.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Cameron DA, et al. Economic evaluation of fulvestrant as an extra step in the treatment sequence for ER-positive advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(12):1984–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Lux MP, et al. Cost-utility analysis for advanced breast cancer therapy in Germany: results of the fulvestrant sequencing model. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(2):305–17.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Remak E, et al. Economic evaluation of sunitinib malate for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(24):3995–4000.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Greenhalgh J, et al. Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a NICE single technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(5):403–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Chabot I, Rocchi A. How do cost-effectiveness analyses inform reimbursement decisions for oncology medicines in Canada? The example of Sunitinib for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Value Health. 2010;13(6):837–45.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zhu J, et al. Gene-guided Gefitinib switch maintenance therapy for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive Non-small cell lung cancer: an economic analysis. BMC Cancer. 2013;13(39):1–11.
40.
Bowater RJ, Bridge LJ, Lilford RJ. The relationship between progression-free and post-progression survival in treating four types of metastatic cancer. Cancer Lett. 2008;262(1):48–53.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Jansen JP, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–28.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Hoaglin DC, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–37.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Delea TE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus capecitabine in women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who have received prior therapy with trastuzumab. Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(5):589–603.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Kilonzo M, et al. Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a NICE single technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(1):15–24.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lidgren M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HER2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(6):1018–28.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Machado M, Einarson TR. Lapatinib in patients with metastatic breast cancer following initial treatment with trastuzumab: an economic analysis from the Brazilian public health care perspective. Breast Cancer Targets Therapy. 2012;4:173–82.
47.
Ishak KJ, et al. Methods for adjusting for bias due to crossover in oncology trials. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(6):533–46.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Jonsson L, et al. Analyzing overall survival in randomized controlled trials with crossover and implications for economic evaluation. Value Health. 2014;17(6):707–13.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Davies A, et al. The ends justify the means: outcome measures for estimating the value of new cancer therapies. Health Outcomes Res Med. 2012;3(1):e25–36.CrossRef
50.
Wu B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adding Rh-endostatin to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China. Clin Ther. 2011;33(10):1446–55.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Lazzaro C, et al. An Italian cost-effectiveness analysis of paclitaxel albumin (nab-paclitaxel) versus conventional paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer patients: the COSTANza study. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res. 2013;5(1):125–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Spolverato G, et al. Hepatic resection for disappearing liver metastasis: a cost-utility analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;19(9):1668–75.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Delea TE, et al. Cost effectiveness of dabrafenib as a first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(4):367–80.CrossRefPubMed
54.
55.
Metadaten
Titel
Use of Intermediate Endpoints in the Economic Evaluation of New Treatments for Advanced Cancer and Methods Adopted When Suitable Overall Survival Data are Not Available
verfasst von
Catherine Beauchemin
Marie-Ève Lapierre
Nathalie Letarte
Louise Yelle
Jean Lachaine
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2016
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 9/2016
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0401-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2016

PharmacoEconomics 9/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial

Model Validation: Has it’s Time Come?

Original Research Article

The Clinical Impact and Cost Effectiveness of Quadrivalent Versus Trivalent Influenza Vaccination in Finland

Systematic Review

Unremarked or Unperformed? Systematic Review on Reporting of Validation Efforts of Health Economic Decision Models in Seasonal Influenza and Early Breast Cancer

Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of IDegLira vs. Alternative Basal Insulin Intensification Therapies in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in a UK Setting

Systematic Review

Economic Evaluations of Opioid Use Disorder Interventions

Practical Application

Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Policy Assessment: A Tutorial