Savannah Gelhard1, Amiee Maxwell2,3, Howard Colman4, Adam L Cohen5,6, Joe S Mendez7. 1. School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. Total Cancer Care Department, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 3. Winona State University, Winona, MN, USA. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Division of Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 6. Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA, USA. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. neuropub@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Optimal treatment for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) comprises polychemotherapy induction with high-dose methotrexate followed by consolidation therapy, but there is no standard treatment regimen because of a lack of comparative trials examining efficacy or relative value. We performed a retrospective outcome and relative cost analysis on consolidation regimens to gain perspective on how cost and benefit can be weighed in medical decisions for patients with PCNSL. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL who completed consolidation at our institution from July 1, 2012, to March 1, 2019, were included. Patients completed etoposide/cytarabine (EA), high-dose cytarabine (HIDAC), or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue (HDC-ASCR) as consolidation regimen. Data were collected from the electronic medical record and our institution's Value Driven Outcomes tool. Survival was analyzed as date of diagnosis to last known date of survival. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients included in the study, 12 completed the EA regimen, 4 completed HDC-ASCR, and 6 completed HIDAC. Facility and pharmacy costs contributed most to the cost of each treatment. HDC-ASCR treatment was 50× the cost of the cheapest treatment, HIDAC. Outcomes were numerically superior with HDC-ASCR and HIDAC compared with EA (2-year progression-free survival 100% vs. 100% vs. 63.6%, respectively, p = 0.1915). CONCLUSION: This small retrospective cost-benefit analysis provides evidence that HDC-ASCR may be a superior treatment for PCNSL but at a higher cost than other consolidation regimens. HIDAC may increase value for patients, including elderly patients, who are not appropriate candidates for HDC-ASCR when compared with EA.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Optimal treatment for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) comprises polychemotherapy induction with high-dose methotrexate followed by consolidation therapy, but there is no standard treatment regimen because of a lack of comparative trials examining efficacy or relative value. We performed a retrospective outcome and relative cost analysis on consolidation regimens to gain perspective on how cost and benefit can be weighed in medical decisions for patients with PCNSL. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL who completed consolidation at our institution from July 1, 2012, to March 1, 2019, were included. Patients completed etoposide/cytarabine (EA), high-dose cytarabine (HIDAC), or high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue (HDC-ASCR) as consolidation regimen. Data were collected from the electronic medical record and our institution's Value Driven Outcomes tool. Survival was analyzed as date of diagnosis to last known date of survival. RESULTS: Of the 22 patients included in the study, 12 completed the EA regimen, 4 completed HDC-ASCR, and 6 completed HIDAC. Facility and pharmacy costs contributed most to the cost of each treatment. HDC-ASCR treatment was 50× the cost of the cheapest treatment, HIDAC. Outcomes were numerically superior with HDC-ASCR and HIDAC compared with EA (2-year progression-free survival 100% vs. 100% vs. 63.6%, respectively, p = 0.1915). CONCLUSION: This small retrospective cost-benefit analysis provides evidence that HDC-ASCR may be a superior treatment for PCNSL but at a higher cost than other consolidation regimens. HIDAC may increase value for patients, including elderly patients, who are not appropriate candidates for HDC-ASCR when compared with EA.
Authors: Antonio Omuro; Denise D Correa; Lisa M DeAngelis; Craig H Moskowitz; Matthew J Matasar; Thomas J Kaley; Igor T Gavrilovic; Craig Nolan; Elena Pentsova; Christian C Grommes; Katherine S Panageas; Raymond E Baser; Geraldine Faivre; Lauren E Abrey; Craig S Sauter Journal: Blood Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Antonio M P Omuro; Leah S Ben-Porat; Katherine S Panageas; Amy K Kim; Denise D Correa; Joachim Yahalom; Lisa M Deangelis; Lauren E Abrey Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-10
Authors: Joe S Mendez; Quinn T Ostrom; Haley Gittleman; Carol Kruchko; Lisa M DeAngelis; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Christian Grommes Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: James L Rubenstein; Eric D Hsi; Jeffrey L Johnson; Sin-Ho Jung; Megan O Nakashima; Barbara Grant; Bruce D Cheson; Lawrence D Kaplan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-04-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrés J M Ferreri; Kate Cwynarski; Elisa Pulczynski; Christopher P Fox; Elisabeth Schorb; Paul La Rosée; Mascha Binder; Alberto Fabbri; Valter Torri; Eleonora Minacapelli; Monica Falautano; Fiorella Ilariucci; Achille Ambrosetti; Alexander Roth; Claire Hemmaway; Peter Johnson; Kim M Linton; Tobias Pukrop; Jette Sønderskov Gørløv; Monica Balzarotti; Georg Hess; Ulrich Keller; Stephan Stilgenbauer; Jens Panse; Alessandra Tucci; Lorella Orsucci; Francesco Pisani; Alessandro Levis; Stefan W Krause; Hans J Schmoll; Bernd Hertenstein; Mathias Rummel; Jeffery Smith; Michael Pfreundschuh; Giuseppina Cabras; Francesco Angrilli; Maurilio Ponzoni; Martina Deckert; Letterio S Politi; Jürgen Finke; Michele Reni; Franco Cavalli; Emanuele Zucca; Gerald Illerhaus Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 18.959