scholarly journals EVALUATION OF DRUG THERAPY IN PROGRESSING DIFFERENTIATED THYROID CANCER REFRACTORY TO RADIOACTIVE IODINE IN PATIENTS RESIDING IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION : PHARMACOECONOMIC ASPECTS

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
M. Yu. Frolov ◽  
V. A. Rogov
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Drug Therapy ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
The Russian Federation

scholarly journals Efficacy and tolerability of lenvatinib in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: results of a multicenter observational study in the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
E. V. Borodavina ◽  
P. A. Isaev ◽  
A. Yu. Shurinov ◽  
P. O. Rumyantsev ◽  
V. V. Krylov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Good Tolerability ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Median Progression Free Survival ◽  
The Russian Federation

Background. The implementation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors into clinical practice improved treatment outcomes in patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Lenvatinib is recommended as a first-line drug for these patients. The study objective is to analyze clinical experience with lenvatinib in patients with RR-DTC in the Russian Federation. Materials and methods. The data from 18 clinical sites in Russia was analyzed for the period December 2015 and September 2019. Seventyseven patients with histologically verified DTC, proven resistance to radioactive iodine therapy, and tumor progression (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria) were included in the study. Results.Median progression-free survival in patients included into analysis (n = 72) was 26.1 months. In patients who responded to therapy (including those with partial and complete response), median progression-free survival reached 36.2 months, which is higher than that reported in the updated results of the SELECT study (33.1 months). Lenvatinib-associated adverse events (AEs) were observed in 87 % of patients. Severe AEs were registered in 18.2 % of participants. In 6.5 % of cases, AEs lead to lenvatinib cessation; in 74 % of cases, AEs required dose reduction.Conclusion. Our findings suggest high efficacy and good tolerability of lenvatinib in patients with RR-DTC in routine clinical practice in the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document