BackgroundTo assess concordance between Medicare claims and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) reports of incident BM among prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The prevalence and consequences of bone metastases (BM) have been examined across tumor sites using healthcare claims data however the reliability of these claims-based BM measures has not been investigated.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study utilized linked registry and claims (SEER-Medicare) data on men diagnosed with incident stage IV M1 PCa between 2005 and 2007. The SEER-based measure of incident BM was cross-tabulated with three separate Medicare claims approaches to assess concordance. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated to assess the concordance between registry- and claims-based measures.ResultsBased on 2,708 PCa patients in SEER-Medicare, there is low to moderate concordance between the SEER- and claims-based measures of incident BM. Across the three approaches, sensitivity ranged from 0.48 (0.456 – 0.504) to 0.598 (0.574 - 0.621), specificity ranged from 0.538 (0.507 - 0.569) to 0.620 (0.590 - 0.650) and PPV ranged from 0.679 (0.651 - 0.705) to 0.690 (0.665 - 0.715). A comparison of utilization patterns between SEER-based and claims-based measures suggested avenues for improving sensitivity.ConclusionClaims-based measures using BM ICD 9 coding may be insufficient to identify patients with incident BM diagnosis and should be validated against chart data to maximize their potential for population-based analyses.

No abstract

Bone metastasis and SREs in prostate cancer patients are associated with considerable morbidity, reduced survival, and substantial economic burden. Consistent study methodology, particularly the measurement of SREs, is necessary to allow comparison of estimates across studies. The inclusion of patient-centered clinical and economic outcomes in future research will provide pertinent information regarding the burden of bone metastasis and SREs.

Background: Durvalumab was approved by the FDA in February 2018 for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC that has not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and this regimen is the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC. Methods: A 3-state semi-Markov model was used. Modeling was performed in a US healthcare setting from Medicare and commercial payer perspectives over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy (progression-free and post progression survival) and utility inputs were based on PACIFIC study data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125461; data cutoff March 22, 2018). Overall survival extrapolation was validated using overall survival data from a later data cutoff (January 31, 2019). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone, calculated as the difference in total costs between treatment strategies per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: In the base-case analysis, durvalumab following cCRT was cost-effective versus cCRT alone from Medicare and commercial insurance perspectives, with ICERs of $55,285 and $61,111, respectively, per QALY gained. Durvalumab was thus considered cost-effective at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model was particularly affected by variables associated with subsequent treatment, although no tested variable increased the ICER above the WTP threshold. Scenario analyses showed the model was most sensitive to assumptions regarding time horizon, treatment effect duration, choice of fitted progression-free survival curve, subsequent immunotherapy treatment duration, and use of a partitioned survival model structure. Conclusions: In a US healthcare setting, durvalumab was cost-effective compared with cCRT alone, further supporting the adoption of durvalumab following cCRT as the new standard of care in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Despite treatment with novel agents for RRMM in 86% of patients, an outcome gap persists for older patients and those with RI and/or CVD. Personalized treatment approaches that account for age and comorbidities, and further evaluation of innovative regimens and dosing schedules, are needed to improve outcomes for these patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of novel drug agents in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has been associated with improved therapeutic outcomes and survival; however, MM continues to pose a significant economic burden on patients and health care systems. Evaluating economic implications of therapies can provide key points of distinctions between available treatment options. Patients with MM may experience productivity loss, including lost days from work or inability to work due to MM symptoms or to undergoing treatment. Although direct costs of illness have been well described in the literature, indirect costs associated with MM are understudied. OBJECTIVE: To compare the extent of disability benefit use and resultant workplace productivity loss among U.S. adult patients with newly diagnosed MM who received oral versus injectable MM therapy.METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters, Medicare Supplemental Coordination of Benefits, and Health and Productivity Management databases (2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015). Workplace absenteeism, as measured by disability benefit use, was evaluated 1 year before and 1 year after first MM diagnosis. Patients receiving only oral chemotherapy were compared with those who received injectable therapy. Absenteeism days and associated costs were compared among study groups using multivariable zero-inflated Poisson regression.RESULTS: The final study cohort included 299 patients with newly diagnosed MM, of whom 73 received oral therapy only and 226 received injectable therapy. Treatment type was a significant predictor of disability benefit use. Patients who received injectable therapy missed an average of 110 work days in the 1 year after diagnosis, compared with 87 for patients receiving only oral therapy (difference of 23 days, 95% CI = 19-26, P < 0.001). Treatment type was also a significant predictor of costs associated with lost productivity. Patients who received injectable therapy experienced productivity loss valued at $18,315, compared with patients who only received oral drug therapy

No abstract

No abstract