Search

Abstract Backgrounds Limited information is available on the utility values of metastatic pancreatic cancer, focusing on different health statuses, selected chemotherapy, and related grades 1/2 and 3/4 adverse events (AEs). We evaluated Japanese societal-based health-related utility values for metastatic pancreatic cancer by considering different grade toxicities commonly associated with chemotherapy using the vignette-based method. Methods We developed health status scenarios for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer undergoing chemotherapy and conducted utility research using the developed scenarios in four steps: ‘literature review,’ ‘exploratory interview,’ ‘content validation’, and ‘utility research’. In the development process, to consider the impact of AEs of chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer on health state utility values, we selected neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy as representative AEs. Each AE was classified as either grade 1/2 or 3/4. We confirmed our created scenarios through cognitive interviews with the general population and clinical experts to validate the content. Finally, we developed 11 scenarios for using ‘utility research,’ evaluated in a societal-based valuation study using the face-to-face method. Participants for ‘utility research’ were the general population, and they evaluated these scenarios in the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and visual analog scale (VAS) of the European quality of life (EuroQol) valuation technology to derive health state utility scores. Results Of 220 responders who completed this survey, 201 were adapted into the analysis population. Stable disease with no AEs (reference state) had a mean utility value of 0.653 using cTTO. The lowest mean utility score in the stable state was 0.242 (stable disease + grade 3/4 vomiting). VAS results ranged from 0.189 to 0.468, depending on the various grades of AEs in stable disease. In addition, grade 3/4 AEs and grade 1/2 nausea/vomiting were associated with significantly greater disutility. Utility values were also strongly influenced by the direct impact of AE on physical symptoms, severity and their experience. In addition, 95.9% of the respondents agreed that they understood the questions in the post-response questionnaire. Conclusions We clarified the health state utility values of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer based on the general population in Japan. The effect on utilities should be considered not only for serious AEs, but also for minor AEs.

We compared the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX)—standard first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan. This retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer treated at the National Cancer Center Hospital East in Japan between December 2013 and February 2017. A partitioned survival model, featuring five mutually exclusive health states, was developed. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A 2% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Parameter uncertainty effect was assessed using a one-way sensitivity analysis. mFFX treatment involved intravenous infusions of oxaliplatin, levofolinate, and irinotecan, whereas GnP treatment involved weekly intravenous administration of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. Dosages were adjusted based on observed adverse events. The total costs of the mFFX and GnP arms were JPY 3,193,597 (USD 31,006) and JPY 3,913,171 (USD 37,992), respectively. Incremental total costs of JPY 719,574 (USD 6,986) were associated with GnP compared to mFFX. Total QALYs were 0.427 and 0.435 for mFFX and GnP, respectively. Therefore, GnP has slightly higher QALYs than mFFX in Japanese real-world clinical practice, suggesting it has a potentially better safety profile, although the impact on healthcare costs persists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality-of-life (QOL) is important for cancer patients with poor prognosis. However, conducting a QOL survey with patients is difficult. Therefore, we conducted a QOL survey with physicians. Specifically, this study aimed to clarify how physicians assess QOL in patients with pancreatic cancer by conducting a survey and comparing the results between physicians and the general public., Methods: A survey was conducted by interviewing physicians administering chemotherapy to patients for recurrent/metastatic pancreatic cancer. This method is similar to that of the QOL survey conducted among the general public. Responses were evaluated using the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and the visual analog scale (VAS) for 11 pancreatic cancer status scenarios (survey scenarios). These scenarios consisted of patients' health states as well as the types and grades of adverse events (AEs). Health status was classified into two categories: Stable disease (SD) and Progressive disease (PD). In addition, we conducted a survey using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5l) as reference values., Results: Twenty physicians responded to the survey. SD had the highest mean QOL value for both assessment methods (Physicians: 0.78, General public: 0.63), whereas PD had the lowest mean QOL value (Physicians: 0.15, General public: -0.12). The physicians assigned higher QOL values on both the VAS and cTTO than the general public did in all survey scenarios., Conclusions: The QOL values obtained from physicians were consistent with the degree of status in any assessment scenarios. Based on the differences in the QOL survey results between physicians and the general public, physicians tended to assign higher QOL values than the general public in cTTO and VAS assessments., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (© 2024 Sasahara, Takumoto, Watanabe, Takeda, Umemoto, Sunakawa, Suzuki, Yoshioka, Kobayashi, Ueno, Nakamura, Akazawa and Narimatsu.)