Background: Treatment options for patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/m HNSCC) are limited and prognosis is poor. The recent CheckMate 141 clinical trial demonstrated that nivolumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, was efficacious in extending the median overall survival (OS) in this patient population compared with standard therapies. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment in this patient population and examined various subgroups to determine for which, if any, the treatment is more cost-effective. Materials and Methods: We implemented a state transition model for HNSCC with a patient cohort who had tumor progression 6 months after the last dose of platinum-containing chemotherapy and compared the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with docetaxel. Treatment effect estimates and adverse event rates were obtained from CheckMate 141. Costs, utilities, and other model inputs were gathered from published sources. We used a Canadian perspective, a 5-year time horizon, and a 1.5% discount rate for the analysis. Results: Nivolumab extended mean OS by 4 months compared with docetaxel and resulted in fewer treatment-related adverse events, producing an incremental effectiveness of 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The incremental cost of treatment with nivolumab was $18,823. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, nivolumab was not a cost-effective treatment option for r/m HNSCC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,744/QALY. Nivolumab would be cost-effective if its price was reduced by 20%. Our subgroup analysis seemed to indicate that nivolumab might be cost-effective for tumors with expression of programmed death-ligand 1 >5%. Conclusion: We conclude that although nivolumab offers clinical benefit for the treatment of r/m HNSCC over current regimens, it is not cost-effective based on its list price. We have also established a value-based price estimate for nivolumab to be cost-effective in this patient population. Further study is required to draw a definitive conclusion on biomarkers for cost-effectiveness. Implications for Practice: In health care settings in which cost considerations are a constraint on choice of therapy, patient selection should be carefully considered to maintain efficiency in the system. Until a biomarker for response to therapy is identified for nivolumab, this medication is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Objective: The objective of this review is to provide an overview of common drug-drug interactions (DDIs) associated with prostate cancer treatments and outline recommendations for managing polypharmacy. Data sources: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL was carried out to identify pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes caused by DDIs that are relevant for prostate cancer patients, DDIs between prostate cancer therapies and co-administered medications (both prescription and over-the-counter), and measures to prevent DDIs. Medication package inserts were used to identify the impact of DDI on the prostate cancer therapy and suggested interventions. Data summary: No DDIs are expected for the LHRH agonists leuprolide acetate, histrelin, goserelin, or leuprolide mesylate. However, DDIs have been reported for GnRH antagonists, anti-androgens, PARP inhibitors, and taxanes. Although there are no confirmed DDIs for sipuleucel-T to date, it is not generally recommended to use sipuleucel-T concurrently with immunosuppressive medications. Interventions to prevent DDIs include the use of software that can detect clinically significant DDIs, up-to-date medication reconciliation, the inclusion of dedicated clinical pharmacists in cancer treatment teams, and patient/caregiver education. Conclusions: Prostate cancer patients have a high risk of potential DDIs due to numerous new anti-cancer therapies, the increased use of treatment combinations, and the likelihood of comorbid conditions also requiring drug therapy. Drug-drug interaction screening software, up-to-date medication reconciliation, inclusion of oncology pharmacists on healthcare teams, and patient/caregiver education will aid the development of treatment plans that focus on achieving an optimal risk-benefit profile whilst reducing the risk of DDIs.

Background: The effectiveness of immunotherapies for non-small-cell lung cancer under real-world clinical settings remains uncertain. Materials & methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and ...

Aim: To investigate the factors associated with treatment selection and overall survival for first-line EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) therapy among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials & methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of linked administrative health databases in Ontario, Canada. Results: A total of 1011 patients received an EGFR-TKI as first-line therapy. Treatment selection and overall survival associated with these treatments were affected by age, sex, geographical residency, comorbidities and different sites of metastasis. Conclusion: Though recent approval of osimertinib offers a potential new standard of care in the first-line setting, earlier generation TKIs remain pillars in treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer therapeutic armamentarium. Our findings may contribute to optimizing treatment sequencing of EGFR-TKIs to maximize clinical benefits.

With the recent Health Canada approval of olaparib for high-risk, HER2-negative early breast cancer, physicians are now facing the practical challenges of integrating olaparib into current management of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and HR-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−) early breast cancer. This review provides perspectives on some of the challenges related to identification of olaparib candidates, with a focus on the latest guidance for germline BRCA testing and considerations regarding high-risk disease definitions. Updated treatment pathways are explored for both disease states, including other adjuvant treatment options such as pembrolizumab, capecitabine, and abemaciclib. Gaps in the current literature regarding the sequential or combined use of these adjuvant therapies are noted and future, potentially informative, studies are briefly examined.