Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer is primarily intended to reduce local recurrence rates by downstaging tumours, enabling an improved likelihood of curative resection. However, in a subset of patients complete tumour regression occurs implying that no viable tumour is present within the surgical specimen. This raises the possibility that surgery may have been avoided. It is also recognised that response to CRT is a key determinant of prognosis. Recent radiological advances enable this response to be assessed pre-operatively using the MRI tumour regression grade (mrTRG). Potentially, this allows modification of the baseline MRI-derived treatment strategy. Hence, in a ‘good’ mrTRG responder, with little or no evidence of tumour, surgery may be deferred. Conversely, a ‘poor response’ identifies an adverse prognostic group which may benefit from additional pre-operative therapy. Methods/design TRIGGER is a multicentre, open, interventional, randomised control feasibility study with an embedded phase III design. Patients with MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma deemed to require CRT will be eligible for recruitment. During CRT, patients will be randomised (1:2) between conventional management, according to baseline MRI, versus mrTRG-directed management. The primary endpoint of the feasibility phase is to assess the rate of patient recruitment and randomisation. Secondary endpoints include the rate of unit recruitment, acute drug toxicity, reproducibility of mrTRG reporting, surgical morbidity, pathological circumferential resection margin involvement, pathology regression grade, residual tumour cell density and surgical/specimen quality rates. The phase III trial will focus on long-term safety, regrowth rates, oncological survival analysis, quality of life and health economics analysis. Discussion The TRIGGER trial aims to determine whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer can be recruited and subsequently randomised into a control trial that offers MRI-directed patient management according to radiological response to CRT (mrTRG). The feasibility study will inform a phase III trial design investigating stratified treatment of good and poor responders according to 3-year disease-free survival, colostomy-free survival as well as an increase in cases managed without a major resection. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02704520 . Registered on 5 February 2016.

Guiding response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (guided-NACT) allows for an adaptative treatment approach likely to improve breast cancer survival. In this study, our primary aim is to explore the expected cost-effectiveness of guided-NACT using as a case study the first randomized controlled trial that demonstrated effectiveness (GeparTrio trial). As effectiveness was shown in hormone-receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancers (EBC), our decision model compared the health-economic outcomes of treating a cohort of such women with guided-NACT to conventional-NACT using clinical input data from the GeparTrio trial. The expected cost-effectiveness and the uncertainty around this estimate were estimated via probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), from a Dutch societal perspective over a 5-year time-horizon. Our exploratory CEA predicted that guided-NACT as proposed by the GeparTrio, costs additional €110, but results in 0.014 QALYs gained per patient. This scenario of guided-NACT was considered cost-effective at any willingness to pay per additional QALY. At the prevailing Dutch willingness to pay threshold (€80.000/QALY) cost-effectiveness was expected with 78% certainty. This exploratory CEA indicated that guided-NACT (as proposed by the GeparTrio trial) is likely cost-effective in treating HR+ EBC women. While prospective validation of the GeparTrio findings is advisable from a clinical perspective, early CEAs can be used to prioritize further research from a broader health economic perspective, by identifying which parameters contribute most to current decision uncertainty. Furthermore, their use can be extended to explore the expected cost-effectiveness of alternative guided-NACT scenarios that combine the use of promising imaging techniques together with personalized treatments.

Background Owing to multimodal treatment and complex surgery, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) exerts a large healthcare burden. Watch and wait (W&W) may be cost saving by removing the need for surgery and inpatient care. This systematic review seeks to identify the economic impact of W&W, compared with standard care, in patients achieving a complete clinical response (cCR) following neoadjuvant therapy for LARC. Methods The PubMed, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to 26 April 2024. All economic evaluations (EEs) that compared W&W with standard care were included. Reporting and methodological quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), BMJ and Philips checklists. Narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were (incremental) cost-effectiveness ratios and the net financial cost. Results Of 1548 studies identified, 27 were assessed for full-text eligibility and 12 studies from eight countries (2016–2024) were included. Seven cost-effectiveness analyses (complete EEs) and five cost analyses (partial EEs) utilized model-based ( n  = 7) or trial-based ( n  = 5) analytics with significant variations in methodological design and reporting quality. W&W showed consistent cost effectiveness ( n  = 7) and cost saving ( n  = 12) compared with surgery from third-party payer and patient perspectives. Critical parameters identified by uncertainty analysis were rates of local and distant recurrence in W&W, salvage surgery, perioperative mortality and utilities assigned to W&W and surgery. Conclusion Despite heterogenous methodological design and reporting quality, W&W is likely to be cost effective and cost saving compared with standard care following cCR in LARC. Clinical Trials Registration PROSPERO CRD42024513874.

Purpose Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) with neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer is associated with less recurrence and improved clinical outcomes compared to having residual cancer at surgery. However, recent data have demonstrated favorable outcomes for patients with residual HER2-positive cancer who received adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1). Therefore, we sought to determine the optimal chemotherapy/anti-HER2 treatment strategy. Methods We created a decision-analytic model for patients with stage II–III HER2-positive cancer that incorporated utilities based on toxicity and recurrence. We separately modeled hormone receptor-negative (HR−) and positive (HR+) disease and calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs through 5 years. Simulated patients received one of the following neoadjuvant treatments: three ‘intensive’ regimens (TCHP: docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, pertuzumab; THP + AC: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab then doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; THP: taxol, trastuzumab, pertuzumab) and two ‘de-escalated’ regimens (TH: taxol, trastuzumab; TDM-1) followed by adjuvant treatment based on pathologic response. Results Among ‘intensive’ neoadjuvant strategies, treatment with THP was more effective and less costly than TCHP or THP + AC. When ‘de-escalated’ strategies were included, TH became the most cost-effective. For HR-negative cancer, TH had 0.003 fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than THP but was less costly by $55,831, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of over $18M/QALY for THP, well above any threshold. For HR-positive cancer, neoadjuvant TH dominated the THP strategy. Conclusion An adaptive-treatment strategy beginning with neoadjuvant THP or TH followed by tailoring post-operative therapy reduces treatment costs, and spares toxicity compared to more intensive chemotherapy regimens for women with HER2-positive breast cancer.

•A Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of perioperative nivolumab in stage III NSCLC.•Nivolumab plus chemotherapy improved QALYs and remained cost-effective under a $150,000/QALY threshold.•Sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness; postoperative nivolumab cost had the greatest ICER impact.•Subgroup analysis showed cost-effectiveness in non-squamous and PD-L1–positive patients, but not in others.•Findings support stratified reimbursement policies and equitable access to immunotherapy in real-world settings. The NADIM II trial demonstrated that combining perioperative nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, with intensified chemotherapy significantly enhanced pathological complete response rates and overall survival in patients with surgically resectable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to those receiving chemotherapy alone. However, concerns persist regarding the substantial cost of immunotherapy. Our study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant treatment combining nivolumab with chemotherapy versus standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone in resectable stage III NSCLC patients within the U.S. healthcare system. Using data from the NADIM II trial, we developed a Markov model with 3 distinct health states to accurately simulate the overall health outcomes of NSCLC patients following different treatment strategies. This model not only computed essential economic metrics such as life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and total costs but also ensured robustness through sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The group receiving nivolumab plus chemotherapy achieved 7.89 QALYs (9.75 LYs) at a total cost of $428,701.08, whereas the chemotherapy-alone group attained 6.80 QALYs (8.53 LYs) with total costs amounting to $318,550.20. This resulted in an incremental cost of $110,150.88. Considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States, the ICER was determined to be $100,879.21/QALY ($90,193.76/LY). Based on these findings, in the United States, the perioperative use of nivolumab combined with chemotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with stage III NSCLC, given a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY.

This study aimed to assess the cost-utility and budget impact of dual to single HER2 targeted neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer in Sri Lanka. A five-health state Markov model with lifetime horizon was used to assess the cost-utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab (T) plus pertuzumab (P) or lapatinib (L) compared to single therapy of T with chemotherapy (C), in public healthcare system and societal perspectives. Input parameters were estimated using local data, network meta-analysis, published reports and literature. Costs were adjusted to year 2021 (1USD = LKR194.78). Five-year budget impact for public healthcare system was assessed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in societal perspective for neoadjuvantLTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 3), neoadjuvantPTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 2), neoadjuvantLTC plus adjuvantLT (strategy 5), and neoadjuvantPTC plus adjuvantPT (strategy 4) compared to neoadjuvantTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 1) were USD2716, USD5600, USD6878, and USD12127 per QALY gained, respectively. One GDP per-capita (USD3815) was considered as the cost-effectiveness threshold for the analysis. Even though only the ICER for strategy 3 was cost-effective, uncertainty of efficacy parameter was revealed. For strategy 2 neoadjuvant PTC plus adjuvant T, a 25% reduction of neoadjuvant regimen cost was required to be cost effective for use in early HER2 positive breast cancer.

Background There is currently no standardized regimen for management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), and treatment includes varying sequences of surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation. This study examines the diagnostic yield and cost of performing staging diagnostic laparoscopy (SDL) prior to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in BRPC. Methods Sequential patients treated for BRPC between January 2010 and October 2013 were included. SDL was adopted in a staged fashion due to surgeon preference, and included biopsy of visible lesions and washings for cytology. Cost ratios (CRs) were calculated to compare the direct cost of the SDL versus no-SDL groups and to compare patients with positive versus negative SDL. Results Of 116 patients evaluated for BRPC, 75 patients underwent SDL and 19 (25%) revealed occult metastatic disease. Sixteen patients had a positive biopsy and three had positive cytology alone. There was no difference in overall treatment cost (CR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62–1.37), oncologic treatment (CR 0.66, 95% CI 0.32–1.23), or remaining surgical treatment (CR 1.14, 95% CI 0.77–1.71) for patients who underwent SDL compared to those who did not. Patients with a positive SDL incurred lower overall cost compared to those with a negative SDL (CR 0.23, 95% CI 0.16–0.32) due to lack of further surgery or radiation, and less intensive chemotherapy regimens. Conclusions SDL prior to NAT is a useful adjunct to CT to diagnose occult metastatic disease in BRPC.

ObjectivesNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) versus primary debulking surgery (PDS) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) remains controversial in the United States. Generalizability of existing trial results has been criticized because of less aggressive debulking procedures than commonly used in the United States. As a result, economic evaluations using input data from these trials may not accurately reflect costs and outcomes associated with more aggressive primary surgery. Using data from an ongoing trial performing aggressive debulking, we investigated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of NACT versus PDS for AEOC.MethodsA decision tree model was constructed to estimate differences in short-term outcomes and costs for a hypothetical cohort of 15,000 AEOC patients (US annual incidence of AEOC) treated with NACT versus PDS over a 1-year time horizon from a Medicare payer perspective. Outcomes included costs per cancer-related death averted, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Base-case probabilities, costs, and utilities were based on the Surgical Complications Related to Primary or Interval Debulking in Ovarian Neoplasms trial. Base-case analyses assumed equivalent survival; threshold analysis estimated the maximum survival difference that would result in NACT being cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to characterize model uncertainty.ResultsCompared with PDS, NACT was associated with $142 million in cost savings, 1098 fewer cancer-related deaths, and 1355 life-years and 1715 QALYs gained, making it the dominant treatment strategy for all outcomes. In sensitivity analysis, NACT remained dominant in 99.3% of simulations. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy remained cost-effective at $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds if survival differences were less than 2.7 and 1.4 months, respectively.ConclusionsIn the short term, NACT is cost-saving with improved outcomes. However, if PDS provides a longer-term survival advantage, it may be cost-effective. Research is needed on the role of patient preferences in tradeoffs between survival and quality of life.

Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy. To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021. Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY. During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion. These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed. To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer. In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020. There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1. Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative. In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit. These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.