No abstract

Background: Aprepitant has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of aprepitant for children receiving HEC in India, United Kingdom, and the United States. Procedure:We utilized individual patient-level outcome data from a pediatric randomized trial, which demonstrated the superiority of an aprepitant-based anti-emetic prophylaxis over standard ondansetron and dexamethasone for HEC. Health state for each day of follow-up was analyzed and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB) for each country were estimated. Sensitivity analyses by varying cost of aprepitant, hospitalization, and health state utility values by ±25% were conducted.Results: Use of the aprepitant-based regimen resulted in gain of 0.

No abstract

Background: Diagnostic delays in cancers are frequent in developing countries due to poor health infrastructure. Existing literature from developed countries suggests that diagnostic interval in bone sarcomas is primarily dictated by tumour biology with no impact on survival. This study evaluates the social and biological determinants of the diagnostic interval in bone sarcomas in a resource-challenged setting and assesses its impact on treatment outcomes. Methods:A retrospective single-institutional study was conducted on patients with high-grade bone sarcomas recorded in the sarcoma clinic database between 2003 and 2018. Baseline clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of baseline clinical and social characteristics (distance from treating centre and rural vs. urban residence) on the diagnostic interval. Further, the impact of diagnostic interval on histologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, amputation requirement in extremity sarcomas and survival was evaluated.Results: A total of 1227 patients were included for analysis. The median diagnostic interval was 4 months (3-7 months). Age above 18 years, Ewing sarcoma (ES) diagnosis, absence of fever at presentation and tumour size above 7.5 cm were predictors of a longer diagnostic interval (>4 months). The length of the diagnostic interval did not impact amputation requirement or survival outcomes. However, the proportion of patients with good necrosis post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy was lower among patients with longer diagnostic intervals (25% vs. 34⋅16%; p-value = .04). Conclusion:Tumour characteristics rather than social factors determined the diagnostic interval. Diagnostic interval did not impact survival outcomes even in a resource-constrained setting.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of addition of olanzapine to a prophylactic antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant, dexamethasone and ondansetron among children receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA.MethodsHealth states were estimated using individual patient-level outcome data from a randomised trial. The incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated from the patient perspective for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA. One-way sensitivity analysis was done by varying the cost of olanzapine, cost of hospitalisation and utility values by ±25%.ResultsThe olanzapine arm had an increment of 0.0018 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the control arm. The mean total expenditure in the olanzapine arm was greater by US$0.51, US$0.43, US$6.73, US$11.05 and US$12.35 in India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR($/QALY) was US$282.60 in India, US$241.42 in Bangladesh, US$3755.93 in Indonesia, US$6161.83 in the UK and US$6887.41 in the USA. The NMB was US$9.86, US$10.12, US$14.08, US$44.74 and US$98.79 for India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the UK and the USA, respectively. The ICUR estimates of the base case and sensitivity analysis were below the willingness-to-pay threshold in all scenarios.ConclusionThe addition of olanzapine as a fourth agent for antiemetic prophylaxis is cost-effective despite an increase in overall expenditure. Olanzapine should be uniformly considered for children receiving HEC.

IntroductionThe outcomes of osteosarcoma in low middle income countries (LMICs) are different due to patients presenting in advanced stages, resource constraints and the use of non-high-dose-methotrexate (HDMTX)-based regimens. This study derived and validated a prognostic score for osteosarcoma that integrates biologic and social factors and is tailored for patients from an LMIC setting using a non-HDMTX-based protocol.Materials and methodsA retrospective study including osteosarcoma patients enrolled for treatment at a single tertiary care centre in India between 2003-19 was conducted. Baseline biologic and social characteristics were extracted from medical records and survival outcomes were noted. The cohort was randomised into a derivation and validation cohort. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify baseline characteristics that were independently prognostic for survival outcomes in the derivation cohort. A score was derived from the prognostic factors identified in the derivation cohort and further validated in the validation cohort with estimation of its predictive ability.Results594 patients with osteosarcoma were eligible for inclusion in the study. Around one-third of the cohort had metastatic disease with 59% of the patients residing in rural areas. The presence of metastases at baseline (HR 3.39; p<0.001; score=3), elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (SAP) >450 IU/L (HR 1.57; p=0.001; score=1) and baseline tumour size > 10 cm (HR 1.68; p<0.001; score=1) were identified to be independent factors predicting inferior event free survival (EFS) and were included in development of the prognostic score. Patients were categorized as low risk (score 0), intermediate risk (score 1-3) and high risk (4-5). Harrell’s c-indices for the score were 0.682, 0.608 and 0.657 respectively for EFS in the derivation, validation and whole cohort respectively. The timed AUC of ROC was 0.67 for predicting 18-month EFS in the derivation, validation and whole cohorts while that for 36-month EFS were 0.68, 0.66 and 0.68 respectively.ConclusionsThe study describes the outcomes among osteosarcoma patients from an LMIC treated uniformly with a non-HDMTX-based protocol. Tumor size, baseline metastases and SAP were prognostic factors used to derive a score with good predictive value for survival outcomes. Social factors did not emerge as determinants of survival.

No abstract