Search

Background: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking., Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars., Results: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU., Conclusion: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The early integration of supportive care in oncology improves patient-centered outcomes. However, data are lacking regarding how to achieve this in resource-limited settings. We studied whether patient navigation increased access to multidisciplinary supportive care among Mexican patients with advanced cancer., Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted between August 2017 and April 2018 at a public hospital in Mexico City. Patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic tumors ≤6 weeks from diagnosis were randomized (1:1) to a patient navigation intervention or usual care. Patients randomized to patient navigation received personalized supportive care from a navigator and a multidisciplinary team. Patients randomized to usual care obtained supportive care referrals from treating oncologists. The primary outcome was the implementation of supportive care interventions at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included advance directive completion, supportive care needs, and quality of life., Results: One hundred thirty-four patients were randomized: 67 to patient navigation and 67 to usual care. Supportive care interventions were provided to 74% of patients in the patient navigation arm versus 24% in usual care (difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.62; p < .0001). In the patient navigation arm, 48% of eligible patients completed advance directives, compared with 0% in usual care (p < .0001). At 12 weeks, patients randomized to patient navigation had less moderate/severe pain (10% vs. 33%; difference 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.38; p = .006), without differences in quality of life between arms., Conclusion: Patient navigation improves access to early supportive care, advance care planning, and pain for patients with advanced cancer in resource-limited settings., Implications for Practice: The early implementation of supportive care in oncology is recommended by international guidelines, but this might be difficult to achieve in resource-limited settings. This randomized clinical trial including 134 Mexican patients with advanced cancer demonstrates that a multidisciplinary patient navigation intervention can improve the early access to supportive and palliative care interventions, increase advance care planning, and reduce symptoms compared with usual oncologist-guided care alone. These results demonstrate that patient navigation represents a potentially useful solution to achieve the adequate implementation of supportive and palliative care in resource-limited settings globally., (© 2020 AlphaMed Press.)