Search

This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plus cetuximab for patients with previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to simulate costs and clinical outcomes of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and the National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the net monetary benefit were calculated from a health payer perspective. The impact of uncertainty was modeled with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.In the base-case, SBRT plus cetuximab compared to SBRT alone resulted in an ICER of NT$ 840,455 per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the utility of progression-free state for patients treated with SBRT plus cetuximab or SBRT alone and the cost of progression-free survival for SBRT+Cet were the most sensitive parameters in the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$ 2,252,340 per QALY was 100% for SBRT plus cetuximab but 0% for SBRT alone.This study showed that SBRT+Cet was cost-effective and benefited patients with previously irradiated rSCCHN.

Objective : We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Methods : A decision analysis model compared the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib versus placebo for patients with or without germline BRCA mutations. Resource use and associated costs were estimated from the 2020 National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Clinical effectiveness was measured in progression-free survival per life-years (PFS-LY) based on the results of clinical trials SOLO2/ENHOT-Ov21 and ENGOT-OV16/NOVA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a single-payer perspective. Results : In the base case, olaparib was the more cost-effective treatment regimen. The ICERs for olaparib and niraparib compared to placebo were NT$1,804,785 and NT$2,340,265 per PFS-LY, respectively. Tornado analysis showed that PFS and the total resource use cost of niraparib regimen for patients without gBRCA were the most sensitive parameters impacting the ICER. The ICERs for both drugs in patients with a gBRCA mutation were lower than in patients without a gBRCA mutation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that olaparib was more cost-effective than niraparib at the willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$2,602,404 per PFS life-year gained. Conclusion : Olaparib was estimated to be less costly. Therefore, olaparib was considered to be a cost-effective maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer from the Taiwan NHIA perspective.

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) followed by lipiodol infusion in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients with advanced HCC and PVTT who received HAIC with regimens of cisplatin, mitomycin-C, and 5-fluorouracil followed by lipiodol infusion were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was tumor response rate. The modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was used for assessment of treatment response. The secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Prognostic factors for survival also were evaluated. Results: The median OS and PFS were 11.9 and 9.5 months, respectively. Seventeen patients (53.1%) achieved objective response, and 23 patients (71.9%) achieved disease control. The length of survival in the responder and disease control groups was longer than in the non-responder and progressive disease groups after two cycles of HAIC (responder vs. non-responder: 16.5 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.001, disease control vs. progressive disease: 12.3 vs. 5.6 months, p &lt, 0.001) and after completing HAIC (responder vs. non-responder: 15.7 vs. 6.9 months, p = 0.001, disease control vs. progressive disease: 13.6 vs. 6.9 months, p &lt, 0.001). Better survival was associated with Child-Pugh A liver function (p = 0.013), with early response to two HAIC cycles (p = 0.009), and with response (p = 0.02) and disease control (p = 0.001) after completing HAIC treatment. Conclusion: HAIC followed by lipiodol infusion is a safe and feasible treatment for advanced HCC with PVTT. Patients with early response could continue HAIC treatment with expected prolonged survival.

We compared the efficacy and safety of combinations of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors as second-line treatment in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− metastatic breast cancer. We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for phase II/III randomized trials evaluating CDK4/6 and PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors plus fulvestrant. We compared the results with a network meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed following the GRADE approach. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival, overall response rate, overall survival and G3–4 adverse drug events (ADEs). Eight RCTs were identified in the network meta-analysis. PFS was significantly improved by treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and ribociclib plus fulvestrant compared to pictilisib plus fulvestrant. The ORR following treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant, palbociclib plus fulvestrant, buparlisib plus fulvestrant, and alpelisib plus fulvestrant significantly differed from that observed following treatment with placebo plus fulvestrant. In terms of OS, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, ribociclib plus fulvestrant, and buparlisib plus fulvestrant had a significant difference. The risks of ADEs were similar among three CDK4/6 inhibitors. As second-line treatment, three CDK4/6 inhibitors showed superior clinical efficacy compared to other PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors with comparable safety profiles.

The abscopal effect is defined as the clearance of distant tumors after applying localized irradiation to a particular tumor site. It has been proposed that a mechanism for the abscopal effect might be the activation of the immune system, which leads to immunogenic tumor cell death. Here, we describe a woman with advanced breast cancer that received modified ablative radiation therapy that targeted her primary breast tumor. She experienced an apparent regression of metastatic mass in the thoracic spine. This case supported the hypothesis that the abscopal effect might be attributable to an activation of the systemic immune response.