Search

3070 Background: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA technology to detect cancer and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) has potential to efficiently identify malignancies for which effective screening modalities do not exist. A previous version of a blood-based MCED test demonstrated favorable classification and test characteristics. Samples from the ongoing PATHFINDER study were reanalyzed in a prespecified interim analysis to evaluate performance of a more recent version of the test with an updated classifier (eg, updated CSO localization, hematological signal threshold) that is planned for clinical implementation as a general multi-cancer screening tool. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study in which results (cancer signal detected/not detected and predicted CSO) using a previous version of the MCED test are returned to investigators, and those with a signal detected undergo further diagnostic testing. In this prespecified interim analysis, samples from those enrolled as of October 6, 2020 were reanalyzed with the more recent version of the MCED test (these results were not returned to investigators). The positive predictive value (PPV) for cancer detection, overall CSO accuracy, and concordance between the two test versions were assessed. Results: A total of 4011/4047 (99%) participants (pts) were analyzable (mean [SD] age 63.9 [8.7] years, 62% female, 92% white, 24% with prior cancer history, 39% ever smoker [4% current], 6% with genetic cancer predisposition). Cancer signal was detected in 0.95% (38/4011). A total of 27/38 also had signal detected by the previous version of the MCED test, including 19 who reached diagnostic resolution (13 with cancer diagnosis and 6 without); 11/38 were discordant positives. Nine different cancer types were detected in the 13 pts (2 stage I, 3 stage II, 2 stage III, and 3 stage IV); 1 had no AJCC stage expected, 1 metastatic recurrence and 1 stage evaluation underway. A conservative minimal PPV assuming all discordant positives are false positives, was 43.3% (13/30, 95% CI 27.4-60.8%) based on 19 pts with diagnostic resolution and 11 discordant positives. High negative percent agreement (PA) 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) between the two test versions was observed. Positive PA of 43.5% (95% CI, 31.9-55.9%) was consistent with the more stringent threshold for hematologic signal in the recent MCED version, as most discrepant cases had hematologic CSO with the previous MCED test. Among 13 detected cancers, accuracy of the top CSO prediction was 92.3% (12/13, 95% CI 66.7-99.6%). Conclusions: In this prespecified interim analysis, the more recent version of the MCED test detected cancers with high PPV and high accuracy of CSO prediction, supporting readiness for use in clinical practice. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

10550 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic imposes significant impact on daily activities with regard to public health orders and individual responses to the pandemic. Much of the direct or indirect impact is potentially in reductions in healthcare encounters for services such as preventive care. Here, we quantified changes in cancer screening rates to better understand the impact of the evolving COVID-19 implications and shifts in health-seeking behaviors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of cancer screening rates during March-June 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and March-June 2020 (post-COVID-19 restrictions), using Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database which includes Medicare and commercially insured members. Members meeting age and/or sex criteria as detailed in the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and cervical cancer screening represented the eligible membership for screening. Procedure and laboratory services were used to identify those who received cancer screening. Analyses were conducted cross-sectionally by cancer screening type. Results: Eligible cohorts were identified from insured members within March-June 2019 and 2020 (2019: 17,931,318; 2020: 17,521,411). The percent of eligible members screened in March-June 2019 was 19.3%, 9.4%, 16.7%, 0.4%, and 7.8% for breast, cervical, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Changes in screening rates from 2019 to 2020 are summarized in Table, with the sharpest decline in April. The percent change from 2019 to 2020 during the combined March-June period for each cancer screening type was statistically significant (p

3010 Background: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study evaluating implementation of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA analysis to detect multiple cancer types and simultaneously predict cancer signal origin (CSO). We present a prespecified interim analysis of PATHFINDER evaluating an MCED test in a clinical setting. Methods: Participants (pts; ≥50y) were enrolled into 2 risk cohorts: non-elevated and elevated (smoking history, prior cancer [ > 3y post treatment], or genetic predisposition). MCED test results (cancer signal detected/not detected) were returned to investigators; pts with a signal detected also received a CSO prediction and underwent further diagnostic testing by their medical team. The primary objective was to assess the extent of diagnostic testing needed to achieve diagnostic resolution (eg, time to resolution, number/type of tests). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive value (PPV) and a measure of test satisfaction (following diagnostic resolution [signal detected] and post test [signal not detected]). Results: PATHFINDER consented 6796 pts before closing accrual on 12/4/20; as of October 6, 2020, 4086 consented, 4047 enrolled, and 4033 analyzable pts were included in the interim analysis (62.4% female, 92.1% white). Two study-related adverse events (anxiety of mild severity) were reported. Cancer signal was detected in 1.5% (62/4033) of pts; 40/62 reached diagnostic resolution to date. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to resolution was 78 (95% CI, 54-151) days. Among 40 pts that reached diagnostic resolution, ≥1 imaging test was performed in 93% (37/40); ≥1 invasive procedure was performed in 72% (13/18) versus 18% (4/22) of pts with diagnostic resolution of cancer versus no cancer, respectively. Based on results to date, PPV was 45% (95% CI, 30.7-60.2%; 18/40). Of 18 cancer diagnoses, 11 were solid tumors (3 stage IV, 6 stages I-III, 1 metastatic recurrence, 1 missing stage), and 7 were hematologic malignancies (1 stage IV, 4 stages I-III, 2 without AJCC stage). Accuracy of the top CSO prediction in true positives was 82.4% (95% CI, 59.0-93.8%; 14/17). Most pts were satisfied with the test (43.7% extremely satisfied, 30.7% very satisfied, 14.6% satisfied). Signal detection rate and test satisfaction were similar in the 2 risk cohorts; PPV tended to be higher in the elevated risk cohort, as expected. Conclusions: An interim analysis of this return of results study demonstrated promising MCED test results. Of 40 pts achieving diagnostic resolution, nearly half had a diagnostic workup confirming cancer; CSO was predicted with high accuracy for detected cancers. Taken together with the rarity of adverse events and high test satisfaction, these results support the feasibility of clinical implementation. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

Patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer are pre-disposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (SB), and radiotherapy to bone (RT).To document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases.This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 9/2002 to 6/2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for breast cancer and for bone metastases, and ≥1 claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (SCC, PF, SB, or RT).Of 17,266 patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, 9142 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 5809 patients who met all other criteria, there were 7617 SRE episodes over mean (SD) follow-up of 17.2 (15.2) months. The percentage of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 11% (RT) to 76% (SB). On average, inpatient SCC episodes (n=83 episodes) were most costly; while outpatient PF episodes (n=552 episodes) were least costly. Of the total SRE costs (mean [SE] $21,072 [$36,462]/episode), 36% were attributable to outpatient RT (n=5265 episodes) and 31% to inpatient PF (n=838 episodes).The administrative claims data used in this study may lack sensitivity and specificity for identification of clinical events and may not be generalizable to other populations. Also, for some SRE episode categories, the number of events was small and cost estimates may lack precision.In patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.

This analysis evaluated patient-reported outcomes and analgesic use in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours across three comparative studies of denosumab and zoledronic acid.Pooled data were analysed from three identically designed double-blind phase III studies comparing subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg with intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg monthly in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (n = 2,046), castration-resistant prostate cancer (n = 1,901) or other solid tumours (n = 1,597). Pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life and analgesic use were quantified.At baseline, approximately half of patients had no/mild pain (53 % [1,386/2,620] denosumab; 50 % [1,297/2,578] zoledronic acid). Denosumab delayed onset of moderate/severe pain by 1.8 months (median, 6.5 vs 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.76-0.92; p 0.001; 17 % risk reduction) and clinically meaningful increases in overall pain interference by 2.6 months (median, 10.3 vs 7.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.75-0.92; p 0.001; 17 % risk reduction) compared with zoledronic acid. Strong opioid use and worsening of health-related quality of life were less common with denosumab.Across three large studies of patients with advanced solid tumours and bone metastases, denosumab prevented progression of pain severity and pain interference more effectively than zoledronic acid.

To document the risk of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (BC), lung cancer (LC), or prostate cancer (PC) in routine clinical practice. We used data from two large US health systems to identify patients aged ≥18 years with primary BC, LC, or PC and newly diagnosed bone metastases between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2009. Beginning with the date of diagnosis of bone metastasis, we estimated the cumulative incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs) (spinal cord compression, pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, bone surgery), based on review of medical records, accounting for death as a competing risk. We identified a total of 621 BC, 477 LC, and 721 PC patients with newly diagnosed bone metastases. SREs were present at diagnosis of bone metastasis in 22.4, 22.4, and 10.0 % of BC, LC, and PC patients, respectively. Relatively few LC or PC patients received intravenous bisphosphonates (14.8 and 20.2 %, respectively); use was higher in patients with BC, however (55.8 %). In BC, cumulative incidence of SREs during follow-up was 38.7 % at 6 months, 45.4 % at 12 months, and 54.2 % at 24 months; in LC, it was 41.0, 45.4, and 47.7 %; and in PC, it was 21.5, 30.4, and 41.9 %. More than one half of patients with bone metastases had evidence of SREs (BC: 62.6 %; LC: 58.7 %; PC: 51.7 %), either at diagnosis of bone metastases or subsequently. SREs are a frequent complication in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases, and are much more common than previously recognized in women with BC.

Background: Bone metastases are common in women with advanced breast cancer and are frequently associated with skeletal-related events (SREs). The burden of individual SRE types on health resource utilization (HRU) indicators in breast cancer has been only minimally described. Methods: The aim of this ongoing observational, prospective, multinational study is to assess, by tumor type, the amount of HRU associated with different SRE types including pathologic fracture, surgery or radiation to bone, and spinal cord compression. Patients with breast, prostate, or lung cancer and bone metastases or multiple myeloma were enrolled after experiencing a SRE. Inpatient hospitalizations, length of stay, outpatient visits, emergency room visits, nursing home/long-term care facility stays, home health visits, procedures, and medications were collected for the period 90 days prior to enrollment and prospectively to a maximum of 18 months. Each patient could contribute multiple SREs. The investigator determined which HRU were attributed to each SRE. This abstract describes interim analysis data from the US breast cancer cohort; final analysis data will be available 9/2010. Results: As of 12/1/2009, 67 patients contributed 119 SREs for the HRU analyses across 25 US sites. Patient mean [SD] age was 61 [12] years, all patients were female, and 27% discontinued the study (most due to death). Mean duration of follow-up was 9.9 months. HRU for each of the SRE types are shown in the table. Table. Mean and median number of HRU per SRE during the study period by SRE type in patients with breast cancer Conclusion: In this interim analysis of advanced breast cancer patients in the US, SREs are associated with considerable HRU, with the nature and extent of HRU varying depending on the SRE type. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-06.

In a recently completed trial of breast cancer patients with bone metastases, denosumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-RANKL antibody, was superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in delaying/preventing skeletal-related events. Between-treatment differences in patient-reported pain interference with daily functioning were assessed. Eligible breast cancer patients received monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or intravenous ZA 4 mg (double-bind, double-dummy design). Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) to assess pain severity and interference with daily functioning (range 0 [does not interfere]-10 [interferes completely]) at baseline (BL), day 8, and before each monthly visit through end of study. The BPI interference scale generated a total interference score as well as an activity subscale (interference with walking, general activity, and work) and an affective subscale (interference with relations with others, enjoyment of life, and mood). Analyses were conducted on all randomized patients with ≥1 PRO assessment and were performed through week 73, when 30% of patients had dropped out due to death, disease progression, or consent withdrawal. Subgroups included patients with no/mild and moderate/severe worst pain at BL. Analyses included time to improvement (≥2-point decrease) or worsening (≥2-point increase) in pain interference, mean change from baseline, and proportion of patients with improving or worsening pain interference scores. Time to improvement in pain interference with activity (PIWA) tended to occur more quickly with denosumab compared with ZA (N=1124; median: 70 days denosumab v 86 days ZA; P=0.09), and time to worsening PIWA tended to be longer with denosumab compared with ZA (N=1676; median: 394 days denosumab v 310 days ZA; P=0.13). In patients with no/mild pain at BL, denosumab also demonstrated a trend for shorter time to improvement in PIWA (N=388; 93 days denosumab v 120 days ZA; P=0.06) and longer time to worsening PIWA (N=755; 369 days denosumab v 232 days ZA; P=0.12). Overall, a greater proportion of patients on denosumab had improvement in PIWA on study than ZA (Figure). Findings were similar with the total interference score and affective subscale. Figure Proportion of Patients With Improvement in Pain Interference With Activity (≥2-point decrease from BL)* Daily functioning (total interference and interference with activity and affect) tended to be less disrupted by pain in patients on denosumab compared with ZA. Decreased pain interference showed a trend to occur more quickly with denosumab. Overall, a greater proportion of denosumab patients reported decreased pain interference than ZA patients. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-01.

Background: Patients with breast cancer and bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain, which may impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against RANKL shown to be superior in delaying/preventing SREs and more effective in delaying moderate or severe pain in patients with advanced breast cancer compared with zoledronic acid (ZA). Previously reported results from this study population showed that both denosumab and ZA patients showed improvement or maintenance in HRQoL relative to baseline (BL), and a greater proportion of denosumab-treated patients had a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL. We now describe the effect of denosumab and ZA treatment on HRQoL among patients with varying degrees of pain at BL. Methods: Enrolled patients received subcutaneous (SC) denosumab 120 mg or intravenous (IV) ZA 4 mg every 4 weeks in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion. Pain was evaluated using the Brief Pain Inventory — Short Form (BPI). Patients were divided into 2 subgroups based on the level of pain reported at BL: no/mild pain or moderate/severe pain. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire at BL, day 8, and before each monthly visit to assess overall HRQoL. Higher scores (range 0 to 108) represent better HRQoL. Improvement, maintenance, and worsening of HRQoL were assessed through month 18, when 30% of patients had dropped out due to death, disease progression, or withdrawal of consent. A change of ≥5 points (increase or decrease) in the FACT-G total score was considered a meaningful improvement. Results: Among patients who reported no/mild pain at baseline, more denosumab-treated patients had a ≥5-point increase in their FACT-G score from month 4 onwards. Over the 18 month period, an average of 4.1% more (range: −0.6% to 9.3%) denosumab-treated patients experienced meaningful improvement in HRQoL than ZA-treated patients. There were also fewer denosumab-treated patients experiencing ≥5-point decrease in HRQoL over 18 months (average of 2.4% fewer [range:-4.4% to 6.3% fewer]). Similar patterns were also noted for patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline. An average of 3.0% more (range:-1.7% to 7.9%) denosumab-treated patients had ≥5-point increase in FACT-G scores compared with ZA-treated patients over 18 months. A lower proportion of denosumab-treated patients (3.5% fewer [range: −1.1% to 11.5% fewer]) than ZA-treated patients had a decrease ≥5-points in their FACT-G score over 18 months. Conclusion: In patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, a greater proportion treated with denosumab than ZA had a meaningful improvement in HRQoL regardless of their pain level at BL. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-05.

Patients with bone metastasis secondary to prostate or breast cancer or multiple myeloma are predisposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), such as surgery or radiation to the bone, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord compression. Inpatient costs of these and other SREs represent an estimated 49%-59% of total costs related to SREs. However, information on payer costs for hospitalizations associated with SREs is limited, especially for costs associated with specific SREs by tumor type.To examine costs from a payer perspective for SRE-associated hospitalizations among patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastasis secondary to prostate or breast cancer.Patients with SRE hospitalizations were selected from the MarketScan commercial and Medicare databases (January 1, 2003, through June 30, 2009). Sampled patients had at least 2 medical claims with primary or secondary ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for prostate cancer, breast cancer, or multiple myeloma and at least 1 subsequent hospitalization with principal diagnosis or procedure codes indicating bone surgery, pathologic fracture, or spinal cord compression. For patients with prostate cancer or breast cancer, a diagnosis code for bone metastasis was also required. If secondary diagnoses or procedure codes for SREs were present in the claim, they were used to more precisely identify the type of SRE for which the patient was treated, resulting in 3 mutually exclusive categories: spinal cord compression with or without pathologic fracture and/or surgery to the bone; pathologic fracture with or without surgery to the bone; and only surgery to the bone. Related readmissions within 30 days of a previous SRE-associated hospitalization date of discharge were excluded to minimize the risk of underestimating costs. Mean health plan payments per hospitalization, measured as net reimbursed amounts paid by the health plan to a hospital after subtracting patient copayments and deductibles, were analyzed by cancer type and type of SRE.A total of 555 patients contributed 572 hospitalizations that met the study criteria for prostate cancer, 1,413 patients contributed 1,542 hospitalizations for breast cancer, and 1,361 patients contributed 1,495 hospitalizations for multiple myeloma. The mean age range was 61 to 72 years, and the mean length of stay per admission was 5.9 to 11.6 days across the 3 tumor types. The ranges of mean health plan payment per hospital admission across tumor types were $43,691-$59,854 for spinal cord compression, with or without pathologic fracture and/or surgery to the bone; $22,390-$26,936 for pathologic fracture without spinal cord compression, with or without surgery to the bone; and $31,016-$42,094 for surgery to the bone without pathologic fracture or spinal cord compression.The inpatient costs associated with treating SREs are significant from a payer perspective. Our study used a systematic process for patient selection and mutually exclusive categorization by SRE type and provides a per episode estimate of the inpatient financial impact of cancer related SREs assessed in this study from a third-party payer perspective.

Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is an aggressive primary osteolytic tumor. GCTB often involves the epiphysis, usually causing substantial pain and functional disability. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κΒ ligand (RANKL), is an effective treatment option for patients with advanced GCTB. This analysis of data from an ongoing, open-label study describes denosumab's effects on pain and analgesic use in patients with GCTB.Patients with unresectable disease (e.g. sacral or spinal GCTB, or multiple lesions including pulmonary metastases) were enrolled into Cohort 1 (N = 170), and patients with resectable disease whose planned surgery was associated with severe morbidity (e.g. joint resection, limb amputation, or hemipelvectomy) were enrolled into Cohort 2 (N = 101). Patients received denosumab (120 mg) subcutaneously every four weeks, with additional doses on study days 8 and 15. Patients assessed worst pain severity with the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, at each visit for the first six months, and every three months thereafter.Clinically relevant pain improvement was reported by 29% of patients in Cohort 1 and 35% in Cohort 2 during week 1 and by ≥ 50% of patients in each cohort at each study visit from months 2-30. Median time to clinically relevant improvement was 30 (95% CI 16, 57) days in Cohort 1 and 15 (95% CI 15, 29) days in Cohort 2. Results in patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline were similar. Fewer than 30% of patients in Cohort 1 and 10% in Cohort 2 experienced clinically relevant pain worsening at any visit through 27 months. Most patients had no/low analgesic use during the study.Most patients treated with denosumab experienced clinically relevant decreases in pain within two months.

The purpose of this paper is to document the use of intravenous (IV) bisphosphonates for prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with bone metastases (BM) due to breast cancer (BC), lung cancer (LC), or prostate cancer (PC).Using data from two large US health systems, we identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years with primary BC, LC, or PC and newly diagnosed BM between 1/1/1995 and 12/31/2009. Starting with the diagnosis of BM, we reviewed medical and administrative records for evidence of receipt of IV bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid or pamidronate) and occurrence of SREs. Initiation of IV bisphosphonates prior to occurrence of an SRE was designated "primary prophylaxis"; use following an SRE was designated "secondary prophylaxis".We identified a total of 1,193 patients with newly diagnosed BM, including 400 with BC, 332 with LC, and 461 with PC. Use of IV bisphosphonates was substantially higher in BC (55.8 % of all patients) than in LC (14.8 %) or PC (20.2 %). Use of IV bisphosphonates was fairly evenly split between primary and secondary prophylaxis in BC (26.3 vs. 29.5 %, respectively) and PC (10.6 vs 9.5 %); in LC, however, primary prophylaxis was much less common than secondary prophylaxis (4.8 vs 9.9 %).Almost one half of all patients with BM due to BC, and substantially more with LC and PC, do not receive IV bisphosphonates. Among patients receiving such therapy, treatment often is not initiated until after the occurrence of an SRE. Our study suggests that IV bisphosphonates may be substantially underutilized in patients with BM due to these common cancers.

Purpose Cancer patients with bone metastases (BMets) are predisposed to skeletal complications. Bone-targeted therapies such as denosumab or intravenous bisphosphonates (IVBs) reduce the risk of these complications. This study characterized patterns of IVB use in these patients in the USA. Methods This was a retrospective, observational study using the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases (2002–2011). Subjects with ≥1 claims of diagnosis of breast, lung, or prostate cancer (BC, LC, or PC) and ≥1 claims of BMets diagnosis were included. The date of first BMet diagnosis claim was the “index date.” Key exclusion criteria were diagnosis of other primary cancer, receipt of IVB, or

Skeletal-related events (SREs) including spinal cord compression, pathologic fracture, and radiation or surgery to bone, occur frequently due to bone metastases in advanced cancer. This analysis of a multicentre, observational study was designed to describe cross-regional differences in health resource utilisation (HRU) of SREs in Western Europe and the US. Patients with bone metastases due to breast, lung or prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had experienced a SRE within the past 97 days were enrolled. Investigators recorded HRU associated with SREs, including hospitalisation and length of stay (LOS), outpatient visits, procedures and bisphosphonate use. This subanalysis includes 668 patients with solid tumours (US, n = 190 with 354 SREs; EU, n = 478 with 893 SREs). The rate of SREs associated with hospitalisation(s) was higher in the EU vs. the US (30% vs. 15%, P

Patients with bone metastases secondary to prostate cancer are predisposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, surgery to bone and radiotherapy to bone. The objective of this study was to document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases.This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from September 2002 to June 2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for prostate cancer and for bone metastases, and one or more claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, surgery to bone or radiotherapy).Of 3919 patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases, 2090 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 1237 patients who met all other criteria, there were 1623 SRE episodes over a mean (s.d.) follow-up of 16.1 (12.9) months. The percent of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 14% (radiotherapy) to 82% (surgery to bone). On average, inpatient episodes with surgery to bone (n = 36 episodes) were most costly (mean (s.e.) $88,838 ($11,830)/episode), whereas outpatient episodes with surgery to bone (n = 8 episodes) were least costly (mean (s.e.) $4749 ($1690)/episode). Of the total SRE costs (mean (s.e.) $20,984 ($951)/episode), 41% were attributable to outpatient radiotherapy (n = 1169 episodes), 23% to inpatient radiotherapy (n = 184 episodes), and 19% to inpatient treatment of pathological fractures (n = 101 episodes).In patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.

Purpose: Denosumab was shown to be superior to zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal related events (SRE) in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases in a randomized, double-blind phase III study. We evaluated further results from this study related to skeletal complications and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Experimental Design: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 1,026) and intravenous placebo, or intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg (n = 1,020) and subcutaneous placebo every 4 weeks. Analyses reported here include the proportion of patients with one or multiple on-study SREs, time to first radiation to bone, time to first SRE or hypercalcemia of malignancy, and change in HRQoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy–general). Results: Fewer patients receiving denosumab than zoledronic acid had an on-study SRE (31% vs. 36%, P = 0.006). The incidence of first radiation to bone was 12% (n = 123) with denosumab versus 16% (n = 162) with zoledronic acid. Denosumab prolonged the time to first radiation to bone by 26% versus zoledronic acid (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.94, P = 0.012) and prolonged the time to first SRE or hypercalcemia of malignancy by 18% (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.95; P = 0.007). Ten percent more patients had a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL with denosumab relative to zoledronic acid, regardless of baseline pain levels. Conclusions: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in reducing bone-related complications of metastatic breast cancer and maintained HRQoL, providing an efficacious, well-tolerated treatment option for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 18(17); 4841–9. ©2012 AACR.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) on pain in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases. METHODS: The prevention of pain, reduction in pain interference with daily life activities, and the proportion of patients requiring strong opioid analgesics were assessed in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 3 study comparing denosumab with ZA for preventing skeletal-related events in 2046 patients who had breast cancer and bone metastases. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form at baseline and monthly thereafter. RESULTS: Fewer patients who received denosumab reported a clinically meaningful worsening of pain severity (≥2-point increase) from baseline compared with patients who received ZA, and a trend was observed toward delayed time to pain worsening with denosumab versus ZA (denosumab, 8.5 months; ZA, 7.4 months; P = .08). In patients who had no/mild pain at baseline, a 4-month delay in progression to moderate/severe pain was observed with denosumab compared with ZA (9.7 months vs 5.8 months; P = .002). Denosumab delayed the time to increased pain interference by approximately 1 month compared with ZA (denosumab, 16.0 months; ZA, 14.9 months; P = .09). The time to pain improvement (P = .72) and the time to decreased pain interference (P = .92) were similar between the groups. Fewer denosumab-treated patients reported increased analgesic use from no/low use at baseline to strong opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab demonstrated improved pain prevention and comparable pain palliation compared with ZA. In addition, fewer denosumab-treated patients shifted to strong opioid analgesic use. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who develop bone metastases may experience pain that seriously impacts function and quality of life. A recent randomized phase 3 trial demonstrated superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid (ZA) for prevention of skeletal complications of bone metastases in men with CRPC. Here we report the results of pain interference (PI) with daily functioning. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and 1 site of bone metastasis received either subcutaneous (SC) denosumab 120 mg and intravenous (IV) placebo (n 950) or IV ZA 4 mg and SC placebo (n 951) every 4 weeks. PI with daily functioning (overall; activity [general activity, walking, work]; and affect [mood, enjoyment of life, relations with others]) was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory at baseline and before each monthly visit. Responses on a scale of 0 (no) to 10 (complete) interference were analyzed for all randomized patients through month 18, when 50% of patients had dropped out due to death, disease progression, or consent withdrawal. RESULTS: Overall, from month 1 to 18, the average relative proportion of patients who reported increased PI ( 2 point increase) was 5% greater in the ZA group than in the denosumab group. Among patients with no/mild pain at baseline (56%), 13% more in the ZA group had increased PI relative to denosumab. For PI activity and affect domains, overall relative proportional differences between ZA and denosumab were 6% and 5%, respectively, favoring denosumab. For patients with no/mild pain at baseline, the average relative proportional differences for both domains were 13% each (Figure: Activity). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of men with CRPC and bone metastases, denosumab was associated with a reduced incidence of increased pain interference over the study period compared with ZA, and this was further accentuated in patients with no or mild pain at baseline. Effective management of the impact of pain on patients’ daily lives is important to minimize patients’ distress and maintain quality of life. Preservation of physical function and mood, particularly in the early stages of treatment, contributes substantially towards this goal.

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.

Background Patients with metastatic bone disease are living longer in the metastatic stage due to improvements in cancer therapy, making strategies to prevent the aggravation of bone disease and its complications, such as skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain, increasingly important.Patients and results In this phase 3 trial in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma, denosumab reduced the risk of radiation to bone by 22% relative to zoledronic acid (P = 0.026), prevented worsening of pain and pain interference (2-point increase in Brief Pain Inventory score; P

The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) is widely used for assessing pain in clinical and research studies. The worst pain rating is often the primary outcome of interest; yet, no published data are available on its minimally important difference (MID). Breast cancer patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal related events and completed the BPI-SF, FACT-B, and EQ-5 Datbaseline, week 5, and monthly through the end of the study. Anchor-and distribution-based MID estimates were computed. Data from 1,564 patients were available. Spearman correlation coefficients for anchors ranged from 0.33-0.65. Mean change scores for worst pain ratings corresponding to one-category improvement in each anchor were 0.26-1.04 for BPI-SF current pain, -1.40 to -2.42 for EQ-5D Index score, 1.71-1.98 for EQ-5D Pain item, -2.22 to -0.51 for FACT-BTOI, -1.61 to -0.16 for FACT-G Physical, and -1.31 to -0.12 for FACT-G total. Distribution-based results were ISEM = 1.6, 0.5 effect size = 1.4, and Guyatt's statistic = 1.4. Combining anchor-and distribution-based results yielded a two-point MID estimate. An MID estimate of two points is useful for interpreting how much change in worst pain is considered clinically meaningful.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bone metastases secondary to prostate cancer are predisposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, surgery to bone and radiotherapy to bone. The objective of this study was to document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from September 2002 to June 2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for prostate cancer and for bone metastases, and one or more claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, surgery to bone or radiotherapy). RESULTS: Of 3919 patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases, 2090 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 1237 patients who met all other criteria, there were 1623 SRE episodes over a mean (s.d.) follow-up of 16.1 (12.9) months. The percent of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 14% (radiotherapy) to 82% (surgery to bone). On average, inpatient episodes with surgery to bone (n ¼ 36 episodes) were most costly (mean (s.e.) $88 838 ($11 830)/episode), whereas outpatient episodes with surgery to bone (n ¼ 8 episodes) were least costly (mean (s.e.) $4749 ($1690)/episode). Of the total SRE costs (mean (s.e.) $20 984 ($951)/episode), 41% were attributable to outpatient radiotherapy (n ¼ 1169 episodes), 23% to inpatient radiotherapy (n ¼ 184 episodes), and 19% to inpatient treatment of pathological fractures (n ¼ 101 episodes). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.

e20665 Background: Cancer patients with BMets are predisposed to skeletal complications. Bone targeted therapies such as denosumab or IVBs reduce the risk of these complications. The objective of this study was to characterize patterns of IVB use in these patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial and Medicare databases (9/02 - 6/11). Subjects were all persons with ≥1 claim with a diagnosis (Dx) of BC, LC, or PC and ≥1 claim with a Dx of BMets. The date of first BMet Dx claim was the “index date”. Key exclusion criteria were Dx of other primary cancer, receipt of IVB pre-index, or 60 days between IVB claims, discontinuation as competing risk), and discontinuation (last IVB claim) were analyzed. Results: Cumulative incidence of initiation of IVB at 12 mos post-index was greatest for BC followed by PC and LC (Table). IVB treatment interruption at 12 mos ranged from 16% (LC) to 31% (PC). IVB treatment discontinuation at 12 mos ranged from 46% (BC) to 83% (LC). Cumulative incidence of initiation of IVB at 12 mos declined with age in all tumor types: e.g., in BC, from 62% at age

Background To estimate the costs (paid amounts) of palliative radiation episodes of care (REOCs) to the bone for patients with bone metastases secondary to breast or prostate cancer. Methods Claims-linked medical records from patients at 98 cancer treatment centers in 16 US states were analyzed. Inclusion criteria included a primary neoplasm of breast or prostate cancer with a secondary neoplasm of bone metastases; ≥2 visits to ≥1 radiation center during the study period (1 July 2008 through 31 December 2009) on or after the metastatic cancer diagnosis date; radiation therapy to ≥1 bone site; and ≥1 complete REOC as evidenced by a >30-day gap pre- and post-radiation therapy. Results The total number of REOCs was 220 for 207 breast cancer patients and 233 for 213 prostate cancer patients. In the main analysis (which excluded records with unpopulated costs) the median number of fractions per a REOC for treatment of metastases was 10. Mean total radiation costs (i.e., radiation direct cost + cost of radiation-related procedures and visits) per REOC were $7457 for patients with breast cancer and $7553 for patients with prostate cancer. Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses excluding patients with unpopulated costs. Conclusions In the US, current use of radiation therapy for bone metastases is relatively costly and the use of multi-fraction schedules remains prevalent.

e15172 Background: Denosumab (Dmab) is superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) for prevention of SREs in pts with CRPC and BM. As Dmab is not cleared renally, it can be used in pts regardless of renal status or concomitant use of nephrotoxic drugs. Previous economic analyses were limited as the analyses were based on short duration-trial based perspectives and/or did not account for disutility associated with IV vs SC administration of ZA and Dmab, respectively. These analyses assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of Dmab vs ZA in pts with CRPC and BM from a US managed care perspective, with extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed, with efficacy of Dmab vs ZA in SRE prevention from a head-to-head phase 3 trial; clinical practice SRE rate in ZA pts from a large commercial claims database analysis; SRE and mode of administration (IV vs SC) quality adjusted life-year (QALY) decrements estimated using the time trade-off method; and SRE costs estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were also included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. Scenario analyses (including adverse events, drug discontinuation, etc), one-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Dmab reduced the number of SREs and increased pts’ QALY vs ZA. In the base case and the scenario analyses, cost per QALY gained was below $50,000, which is commonly considered good value. Cost per SRE avoided was below $9,000. In one-way sensitivity analyses, drug costs and SRE rate were the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probabilities of Dmab being cost-effective vs ZA were 0.83, 0.94, and 0.98 with willingness-to-pay of $100,000, $150,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions: Dmab is a cost-effective treatment option in preventing SREs in pts with CRPC and BM compared with ZA from a US managed care perspective. The overall value of Denosumab is based on superior efficacy and more efficient administration.

e19630 Background: Bony metastases (mets) are a common source of morbidity in patients (pts) with cancer, cause spinal cord compression (SCC), pathological fracture (PF), and bone pain, and often require radiotherapy (RT) and/or surgery to bone (SB). Methods: Using the tumor registry and electronic data stores at a large U.S. Midwest healthcare system that serves approximately 800,000 persons, we retrospectively identified all pts aged ≥18 years with primary breast, lung, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2009. Registry and electronic medical records were then used to identify pts with diagnosis of bone mets at initial cancer diagnosis or at recurrence. Trained technicians reviewed medical records for occurrence of SCC, PF, RT and SB—outcomes that have been collectively referred to as SREs. Cumulative incidence of these events was calculated in the presence of competing risk of death. Results: We identified 378 pts with breast cancer and bone mets, 272 with lung cancer and bone mets, and 420 with prostate cancer and bone mets. SREs were present at initial diagnosis of bone mets in 23% of breast cancer pts, 24% of lung cancer pts, and 10% of prostate cancer pts (Table). At 12 months, cumulative incidence of SREs was 57.3% for breast cancer (SCC, 5.1%; PF, 37.9%; SCC and/or PF, 40.2%; SB, 5.9%; RT, 27.4%), 62.7% for lung cancer (SCC, 8.9%; PF, 37.8%; SCC and/or PF, 43.3%; SB, 3.5%; RT, 32.4%), and 38.4% for prostate cancer (SCC, 7.9%; PF, 21.3%; SCC and/or PF, 26.7%; SB, 4.0%; RT, 22.9%). Use of bisphosphonates was largely confined to pts with breast cancer. Conclusions: Though breast, lung, and prostate cancers differ considerably in presentation, clinical course, and treatment, SREs are a common and serious problem in all three cancers among patients with bone mets. [Table: see text]

e16512 Background: Bone metastases (mets) occur in up to 80% of patients (pts) with advanced prostate cancer and are associated with considerable skeletal morbidity. Radiation therapy is often used to treat spinal cord compression, pathologic fractures, and pain associated with bone mets. However, the burden of radiation therapy, such as dosing, number of fractions, exposure period, and frequency has not been well described. We present the treatment patterns of radiation episodes of care (REOCs) in pts with bone mets secondary to prostate cancer. Methods: Claims-linked medical records at 98 US cancer centers in 16 states were analyzed. Key inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of prostate cancer and bone mets; ≥1 visit to a radiation center on or after bone met diagnosis date (study period: 1 Jul 2008 to 31 Dec 2009); and radiation therapy to ≥1 bone site. Pts with unknown age or REOCs including non-bone site radiation were excluded. Visits and procedures were stratified into radiation and radiation-related categories. Results: A total of 233 REOCs in 213 pts were analyzed. The mean (SD) age was 74 (8.4) years and the mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity index was 6 (1.1). The mean (SD) number of visits for a REOC was 13 (5.8), over a mean (SD) of 30 (16.7) days (from planning visit to follow-up). 71.7% of REOC visits involved radiation therapy, with the remaining visits for radiation-related procedures (table). The mean (SD) number of fractions per REOC was 10 (4). Conclusions: Radiation to the bone is a well recognized treatment for management of bone mets. The use of multi-fraction schedules is common and is associated with substantial burden to pts and healthcare providers. [Table: see text]

e15197 Background: Bone is a common site of metastatic involvement in patients (pts) with PC. Bony metastases (mets) are often associated with SREs (spinal cord compression [SCC], pathologic fracture [PF], surgery to bone [SB], radiotherapy to bone [RT]). Skeletal complications cause significant morbidity and mortality. Current estimates of SRE risk come principally from randomized clinical trials. Information from routine clinical practice is limited. Methods: Using the tumor registry and electronic data stores at a large U.S. Midwest healthcare system that serves approximately 800,000 persons, we retrospectively identified all pts aged ≥18 yrs with primary PC and newly diagnosed bone mets between 1/1/95 and 12/31/09. Electronic medical records were reviewed by trained abstractors for evidence of SREs between date of bone mets diagnosis and death, loss to follow-up, or end of study for evidence of first SRE. Cumulative incidence of SREs was estimated in the presence of competing risk of death. Results: We identified a total of 420 men with primary PC and newly diagnosed bone mets; 42 pts had evidence of SREs at initial diagnosis of bone mets and were excluded from the analyses. Among the remaining 378 pts, mean (SD) age was 72.7 yrs (9.8 yrs); 38% were Caucasian and 58% were African-American. Median duration of follow-up after diagnosis of bone mets was 17.1 months (mos). At 12 mos, cumulative incidence of SREs was 31.6% (SCC, 6.1%; PF, 15.0%; SCC and/or PF, 19.1%; SB, 3.9%; RT, 24.4%) (Table). Corresponding figures at 24 mos were 45.3% (SCC, 12.5%; PF, 22.2%; SCC and/or PF, 30.2%; SB, 6.2%; RT, 34.9%). Relatively few pts (14.6%) received intravenous bisphosphonates prior to SRE. Conclusions: Pts with PC in routine clinical practice are at high risk of SREs following initial diagnosis of bone mets. [Table: see text]

e16528 Background: Although cost utility models are often used to estimate the value of treatments for metastatic cancer, limited information is available on the utility of common treatment modalities. Bisphosphonate treatment for bone metastases (BM) is frequently administered via intravenous (IV) infusion, while a recently approved treatment to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs) of BM is administered as a subcutaneous (SC) injection. This study estimated the impact of these treatment modalities on health state (HS) preference. Methods: Participants from the UK general population completed time trade-off interviews to assess the utility of HS vignettes. Respondents first rated a HS representing cancer with BM. Subsequent HSs added descriptions of treatment modalities (ie, injection or infusion) to this basic HS. To represent a range of possible treatment experiences, the two treatment modalities were presented with and without chemotherapy (chemotx), and infusion characteristics were varied by duration (30 minutes or 2 hours) and renal monitoring. Results: A total of 121 participants completed the interviews (47.9% male, 76.9% white). Cancer with BM had a mean utility of 0.40 on a standard utility scale (1 = full health; 0 = death). Adding an injection resulted in a mean utility decrease (ie, disutility) of -0.004. The 30 minute and 2 hour infusions had mean disutilities of -0.02 and -0.04, respectively. Mean disutility of the 30 minute infusion was greater with renal monitoring (-0.05 with same-day blood draw; -0.07 with blood draw 2 days prior). Chemotx was associated with substantial disutility (-0.17). For the HS of BM with chemotx, the mean disutilities of injection, 30 minute infusion, and 2 hour infusion, were -0.02, -0.03, and -0.04, respectively. Disutility associated with injection was significantly smaller than the disutility of both the 30 minute and 2 hour infusions (p < 0.05), regardless of chemotx status. Conclusions: Respondents perceived an inconvenience with each type of BM treatment, but injections were preferred over infusions. The resulting utilities may be used in cost utility models examining the value of treatments for the prevention of SREs in patients with BM.

e18107 Background: Bone is a common site of metastatic involvement in patients (pts) with LC. Bony metastases (mets) are often associated with SREs (spinal cord compression [SCC], pathologic fracture [PF], surgery to bone [SB], radiotherapy to bone [RT]). Skeletal complications cause significant morbidity and mortality. Current estimates of SRE risk come principally from randomized clinical trials. Information from routine clinical practice is limited. Methods: Using the tumor registry and electronic data stores at a large U.S. Midwest healthcare system that serves approximately 800,000 persons, we retrospectively identified all pts aged ≥18 yrs with primary LC and newly diagnosed bone mets between 1/1/95 and 12/31/09. Electronic medical records were reviewed by trained abstractors for evidence of SREs between date of bone mets diagnosis and death, loss to follow-up, or end of study. Cumulative incidence of SREs was estimated in the presence of competing risk of death. Results: We identified a total of 272 pts with primary LC and newly diagnosed bone mets; 66 pts had evidence of SREs at initial diagnosis of bone mets and were excluded from the analyses. Among the remaining 206 pts, mean (SD) age was 65.7 yrs (10.5 yrs) and 66% were male; 47% were Caucasian and 50% were African-American. Median duration of follow-up after diagnosis of bone mets was 3.0 months (mos). At 6 mos, cumulative incidence of SREs was 45.6% (SCC, 6.9%; PF, 20.6%; SCC and/or PF, 25.0%; SB, 4.1%; RT, 34.7%) (Table). Corresponding figures at 12 mos were 50.8% (SCC, 6.9%; PF, 24.1%; SCC and/or PF, 28.3%; SB, 4.1%; RT, 39.8%). Relatively few pts (17.5%) received intravenous bisphosphonates prior to SRE. Conclusions: Pts with LC in routine clinical practice are at high risk of SREs following initial diagnosis of bone mets. [Table: see text]

e12024 Background: Bone is a common site of metastatic involvement in patients (pts) with BC. Bony metastases (mets) are often associated with SREs (spinal cord compression [SCC], pathologic fracture [PF], surgery to bone [SB], radiotherapy to bone [RT]). Skeletal complications cause significant morbidity and mortality. Current estimates of SRE risk come principally from randomized clinical trials. Information from routine clinical practice is limited. Methods: Using the tumor registry and electronic data stores at a large US Midwest healthcare system that serves approximately 800,000 persons, we retrospectively identified all pts aged ≥18 yrs with primary BC and newly diagnosed bone mets between 1/1/95 and 12/31/09. Electronic medical records were reviewed by trained abstractors for evidence of SREs between date of bone mets diagnosis and death, loss to follow-up, or end of study. Cumulative incidence of SREs was estimated in the presence of competing risk of death. Results: We identified a total of 378 pts with primary BC and newly diagnosed bone mets; 87 pts had evidence of SREs at initial diagnosis of bone mets and were excluded from the analyses. Among the remaining 291 pts, mean (SD) age was 58.2 yrs (14.3 yrs), and 99% were women; 46% were Caucasian and 48% were African-American. Median duration of follow-up after diagnosis of bone mets was 16.1 months (mos). At 12 mos, cumulative incidence of SREs was 44.5% (SCC, 5.2%; PF, 21.0%; SCC and/or PF, 23.3%; SB, 7.6%; RT, 34.3%) (Table). Corresponding figures at 24 mos were 53.8% (SCC, 7.5%; PF, 29.3%; SCC and/or PF, 32.5%; SB, 9.4%; RT, 41.7%). Approximately one-half (45.0%) of study subjects received intravenous bisphosphonates prior to SRE. Conclusions: Pts with BC in routine clinical practice are at high risk of SREs following initial diagnosis of bone mets. [Table: see text]

59 Background: It has become more important to understand the incremental cost/benefit of new medicines as healthcare costs rise. Subcutaneous Dmab is superior to intravenous ZA for prevention of SREs in pts with CRPC and BM (Fizazi, 2011). In addition, a lower proportion of pts receiving Dmab progressed to moderate/severe pain than those receiving ZA (Brown, 2011). Dmab can be used in pts regardless of renal status or concomitant use of nephrotoxic drugs. These analyses assess the lifetime, real world cost-effectiveness of Dmab vs ZA in pts with CRPC and BM from a US managed care perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to estimate SREs, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. The relative rate reduction in SREs for Dmab vs ZA was based on a large head-to-head phase 3 trial (N=1,901). The real world SRE rate in ZA pts was derived from a large commercial claims database analysis (Hatoum, 2008). SRE QALY decrements were estimated using the time trade-off method (Matza, 2011). SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database (Barlev, 2010). Wholesale acquisition drug cost (Analysource, 2011), drug administration, and renal monitoring costs (National Fee Analyzer, 2011) were included. Compliance and mortality were assumed to be the same in both groups. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Results: With a median pt survival of 1.7 years, Dmab reduced the number of SREs and increased pts’ QALY vs ZA. The lifetime cost/pt on Dmab was $7,430 higher than ZA. Cost/QALY gained was $65,134, commonly considered good value based on oncologists’ implied threshold in the US (Nadler, 2006). Cost/SRE avoided was $9,212. Conclusions: Dmab is cost-effective in preventing SREs in pts with CRPC and BM compared with ZA in the US. The overall value of Dmab is based on superior efficacy and more efficient administration. [Table: see text]

Akshara Richhariya1, Yi Qian2, Yufan Zhao2, Karen Chung11Amgen Inc, Global Health Economics, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; 2Amgen Inc, Global Biostatistical Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA, USAPurpose: Intravenous (IV) zoledronic acid (ZA) is commonly used to delay skeletal complications secondary to bone metastases. However, the time associated with ZA administration may represent a significant burden to healthcare providers and patients. This study assessed the time associated with IV ZA infusion in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast or prostate cancer (BC or PC) in the clinic setting.Methods: Eligible BC or PC patients with bone metastases scheduled to receive IV ZA were observed at seven US-based oncology clinics. Trained observers recorded the time for preinfusion tasks, ZA drug preparation, intravenous infusion, and follow-up activities.Results: Data are reported for 39 patients (BC: 24; PC: 15). Mean administration time was 69 (standard deviation [SD] 42) minutes for all patients combined, 72 (SD 47) minutes for BC, and 65 (SD 33) minutes for PC. Activity times were comparable between tumor types. Mean time for preinfusion tasks (eg, assessment of vital signs, blood draw) and ZA preparation were 12 (SD 20) minutes and 2 (SD 1) minutes, respectively. Mean time required for intravenous infusion (ZA infusion and hydration, when provided) and follow-up activities were 54 (SD 31) minutes and 2 (SD 1) minutes, respectively.Conclusion: Infusion time was the greatest time commitment associated with IV ZA administration, representing 78% of the total time on average. Time for preinfusion activities varied substantially. Overall, the mean time for ZA administration represents a notable time burden for healthcare providers and patients.Keywords: time and motion, bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid, intravenous administration

The complications of metastatic bone disease (MBD) in advanced cancer, especially skeletal-related events (SREs), are a significant cause of morbidity that can seriously impair the quality of patients’ lives. Treatments that prevent SREs, reduce or delay the onset of pain and preserve function and activities of daily living are central to good patient care. In this article, we discuss results from clinical trials that show the relative benefits and harms of different bone-targeted agents, which may be given orally, intravenously or subcutaneously. These data, when considered alongside various patient characteristics, can provide oncologists with better opportunities to individualise care. Optimal management with treatments that enhance efficacy and adherence mean that clinicians can improve the outlook for their patients with MBD, who may consequently experience fewer SREs and less pain and enjoy a better overall quality of life.

272 Background: Patients with breast cancer and bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain, which can impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Denosumab is superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) in preventing SREs and more effective in delaying moderate or severe pain in patients with advanced breast cancer. We now describe the effect of denosumab or ZA treatment on HRQoL in these patients. Methods: Patients enrolled in this double-blind, double-dummy study were randomized to receive denosumab (120 mg SC) or ZA (4 mg IV) every 4 weeks. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire at baseline (BL), day 8, and each monthly visit to assess overall HRQoL. Higher scores (range 0 to 108) reflect a better HRQoL. Changes in HRQoL were summarized through month 18, when 30% of patients had died or dropped out due to disease progression or withdrawal of consent. Increases or decreases of ≥ 5 points in the FACT-G total score were considered clinically meaningful. Pain was evaluated by the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form (BPI-SF). HRQoL was assessed in subgroups with no/mild pain or moderate/severe pain at BL. Results: The BL mean (SD) FACT-G score was similar for denosumab (n = 956) 72.7 (16.4) and ZA (n = 952) 73.6 (16.5) groups and increased from BL to month18 for both groups reflecting improved HRQoL. An average of 3.2% more (range 0.9% to 6.8%) denosumab-treated patients than ZA-treated patients experienced a ≥ 5-point increase in HRQoL from months 1 to 18. Fewer denosumab than ZA-treated patients reported a ≥ 5-point decrease in HRQoL (average 2.7% fewer; range 0.6% to 5.8%). Among patients with no/mild pain at BL, an average of 4.1% more (range -0.6% to 9.3%) denosumab-treated patients had a ≥ 5-point increase in FACT-G score from month 4 to 18. In this same subgroup, fewer denosumab-treated patients had a ≥ 5-point decrease in HRQoL over 18 months (average 2.4% fewer; range -4.4% to 6.3%). Similar patterns in FACT-G scores were noted for the subgroup with moderate/severe pain at BL. Conclusions: In patients with advanced breast cancer, a greater proportion treated with denosumab than ZA had a meaningful improvement in HRQoL regardless of BL pain level.

4533 Background: Bone metastases from castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are associated with osteoclast-mediated bone destruction and skeletal-related events (SREs). Denosumab is a fully hum...

e16620 Background: Patients with solid tumors and bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain. Although cost-utility models are often used to estimate treatment outcome...

10037 Background: GCTB is a rare disease in which osteoclast-like giant cells and mononuclear cells express RANKL, a mediator of osteoclast activation. Symptoms include localized tenderness, swelling, and often severe, intractable pain. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds RANKL to inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone destruction. In a previous phase 2 study, 86% of patients with GCTB responded to denosumab. This prespecified analysis of interim 12-month data from a second phase 2 study describes the effects of denosumab on pain in patients with GCTB. Methods: Adult and skeletally mature adolescent patients with GCTB (N=158) received subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg every 4 weeks with a loading dose of 120 mg SC on study days 8 and 15. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Short Form (0-10) was administered before each dose. This analysis includes the 99 patients who received ≥1 dose of denosumab, were on study for ≥6 months, and completed ≥1 BPI assessment. Analyses included the proportion of pati...

9115 Background: Bone metastases (mets) are a common complication of advanced cancer. In a study of patients (pts) with metastatic bone disease, denosumab was non-inferior to zoledronic acid (ZA) f...

e16542 Background: This study describes HRU and cost associated with BMets and SREs in PC pts who have received hormonal therapy (HT). Methods: Retrospective study using the Thomson MedStat MarketS...