Ejc Supplements最新文献

Aim

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus relevant comparators for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumours located in the gastrointestinal tract (GI-NETs) and the pancreas (P-NETs).

Materials and methods

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care (high dose Octreotide LAR), everolimus and sunitinib. Effectiveness data for SoC, everolimus and sunitinib were obtained from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Given a lack of head-to-head effectiveness data, matching adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were performed to population-adjust [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE survival data based on prognostic factors and derive estimates of relative effectiveness. Health state utilities were estimated from real-world evidence. Drug acquisition costs were taken from nationally published sources (BNF, NICE), and administration costs were based on treatment protocols in [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE studies, combined with nationally published unit costs (PSSRU, DoH reference costs). Incidence of adverse events were estimated using published sources. A discount rate of 3.5% was applied to both utilities and costs, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were included from an NHS perspective and presented in 2017/18 GBP (and PPP Euros for base case).

Results

In GI-NETs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC and everolimus was £26,528 (€27,672) and £24,145 (€25,186) per QALY, respectively. In P-NETs, the ICER of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE compared to SoC was £22,146 (€23,101) or £28,038 (€29,251) dependent on matched population, and £21,827 (€22,766) and £15,768 (€16,445) compared to everolimus and sunitinib, respectively.

Conclusions

At a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000, [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for GI-NET and P-NET patients versus relevant treatment comparators (NHS perspective).

Head-to-head comparisons of the efficacy of treatments for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) have not yet been reported. This study used a series of matching-adjusted indirect comparisons to indirectly compare the effectiveness of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE to everolimus, sunitinib and best supportive care (BSC) for extending progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs and P-NETs. The results of the main analysis suggest that after accounting for differences in key prognostic variables, the hazard of progression was 62% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; confidence interval [CI]₉₅ 0.25–0.58) and 65% (HR 0.35 CI₉₅ 0.21–0.59) lower in patients with GI-NETs treated with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with everolimus and BSC, respectively. Similarly, the hazard of progression was 64% (HR 0.36 CI₉₅ 0.18–0.70), 54% (HR 0.46 CI₉₅ 0.30–0.71) and 79–87% (HR 0.21 CI₉₅ 0.13–0.32; HR 0.13 CI₉₅ 0.08–0.22) lower in patients with P-NET treated with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with sunitinib, everolimus and BSC, respectively. The hazard of death was 58% (HR 0.42 CI₉₅ 0.25–0.72), 47% (HR 0.53 CI₉₅ 0.33–0.87) and 44–64% (HR 0.56 CI₉₅ 0.36–0.90; HR 0.34 CI₉₅ 0.20–0.57) lower in P-patients with NET treated with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE than in those treated with sunitinib, everolimus and BSC, respectively. While our results must be interpreted with caution given the non-randomised nature of the comparisons and the potential for residual confounding, the magnitude of the effect sizes we observe and their consistency across comparators suggest that [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE may be a more effective treatment option than everolimus, sunitinib and BSC in advanced, unresectable GEP-NETs.

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death for gynaecological cancer, and new therapies are urgently awaited. Although the presence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes has been confirmed to be associated to a better prognosis, immunotherapy is not yet incorporated to the armamentarium in ovarian cancer. This review briefly summarises the strategies that have been tested or are under study for the three different groups of tumours: immune desert, inflamed and immune-excluded ovarian tumours. Finally, a better knowledge of the biology and immune microenvironment is needed for successfully developing new immunotherapy strategies.

Aim

The description of rare malignant ovarian tumours and the most suitable treatments. Alternative therapies different from intravenous chemotherapy are also explained.

Methods

Literature review and ongoing trial information have been used to elaborate this guide.

Results

Each ovarian cancer type must be identified and treated properly from diagnostic to surgery, adjuvant treatment and metastatic disease. Hormonotherapy can be useful as an alternative treatment, especially in low-grade ovarian cancer and endometrioid subtype. Tumour characterisation is appropriated for treatment selection when targeted therapy is indicated. MEK inhibitors, tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors, therapies against integrins, antibody–drug conjugates and other strategies are described. Antiangiogenics, PARP inhibitors and immunotherapy are discussed in other parts of this publication.

Conclusion

Different ovarian cancer types must receive the appropriated treatment. Alternative therapies may be evaluated beyond the standard therapy, frequently in a clinical trial, and an individualised molecular study may help to find the best treatment.

Ovarian epithelial cancer (OEC) is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. Despite current chemotherapeutic and surgical options, this high lethality can be attributed to multiple factors, including late-stage presentation. In order to optimize OEC treatment, it is important to highlight that it is composed of five main subtypes: high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC), low-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (LGSOC), endometrioid ovarian carcinoma (EOC), ovarian clear cell carcinoma (CCOC), and mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC). These subtypes differ in their precursor lesions, as well as in epidemiological, morphological, molecular and clinical features. OEC is one of the tumours in which most pathogenic germline mutations have been identified. Accordingly, up to 20% OC show alterations in BRCA1/2 genes, and also, although with a lower frequency, in other low penetrance genes associated with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), mismatch repair genes (Lynch syndrome) and TP53. The most important prognostic factor is the 2014 FIGO staging, while older age is also associated with worse survival. HGSOC in all stages and CCC and MOC in advanced stages have the worse prognosis among histological types. Molecular markers have emerged as prognostic factors, particularly mutations in BRCA1/2, which are associated with a better outcome. Regarding treatment, whereas a proportion of HGSOC is sensible to platinum-based treatment and PARP inhibitors due to HRD, the rest of the histological types are relatively chemoresistant. New treatments based in specific molecular alterations are being tested in different histological types. In addition, immunotherapy could be an option, especially for EOC carrying mismatch repair deficiency or POLE mutations.