Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. Methods We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. Results Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. Conclusion The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

In the last 3 years, a novel class of targeted therapy has been approved for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2−) breast cancer. There are currently three approved agents, which are oral cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. All of the approved drugs exhibit progression-free survival benefit when compared to standard of care and generally have less adverse events compared to traditional chemotherapeutic options. The treatment of HR+/HER2− advanced breast cancer is a continuously evolving landscape, and the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors is the newest mechanism for treatment. In this review, we summarize all available data, highlight the unanswered questions, and discuss pharmacological differences between each CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of chemohormonal therapy in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive and non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer.Methods An analytical decision model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of chemohormonal therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer. The cost-effectiveness in metastatic patients with a high-volume disease was assessed separately. The model used data from randomized clinical trials and drug acquisition costs in Brazil. In addition, the costs of post-progression therapies have been included in this model. The benefits to health are expressed as the quality-adjusted life-years, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.Results Chemohormonal therapy may be associated with improved quality-adjusted life-years for all patient. The improvement was more than six times greater for patients with high-volume metastatic disease. In these patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were up to 74% lower than the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of patients with non-metastatic disease.Conclusion Chemohormonal therapy has been more cost-effective in patients with high-volume metastatic disease.

No abstract

Objective:To assess aspects related to cancer in indigenous population.Methods:This is a retrospective study developed in a public university hospital. We included patients with 18 or more years of age, diagnosed with solid tumors, and followed between 2005 and 2015. Clinical features were assessed by descriptive statistics, and survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox regression.Results:Fifty patients were included. The cancer incidence was 15.73 per 100,000. The mean age at diagnosis was 54 years and most patients were female (58%). Cancer of the cervix (28%) and prostate (16%) were the most common. The mean time between the onset of symptoms and the diagnosis was 9 months and from diagnosis to the treatment was 3.4 months. Disease diagnosed at stage IV (17%) had worse overall survival (HR: 11.4; p<0.05). The 5-year survival rate ranged from 88% for prostate cancer to 0% for lung cancer. All 5-year survival rates were lower as compared to other populations.Conclusion:The most prevalent cancer sites were cervix and prostate. Disease stage and primary site were prognostic factors.