A473among advanced ovarian cancer (OC) patients from two large US healthcare claims databases. Methods: The MarketScan Commercial Claims & Medicare (CCMC) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-M) databases were used to identify females aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with advanced OC (including EOC, fallopian tube [FTC] and primary peritoneal cancer [PPC]) and receiving first-line treatment (i.e. the first claim for any chemotherapy within 90 days post-OC diagnosis) between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2015. Patients were followed from their initial diagnosis of OC (i.e. index date) until death, loss-to-follow-up or end-of-study period to assess and compare their clinical characteristics and treatment patterns. Results: A total of 7,825 advanced OC patients were identified (N= 6,170 in CCMC, N= 1,655 in SEER-M). Majority of patients were diagnosed with EOC (CCMC: 89%, SEER-M: 80%), and the mean age (SD) at diagnosis was 59 (11) and 75 (6) years, respectively. The median follow-up time was 1.4 and 2.3 years, respectively. Staging information was only available for the SEER-M cohort; 65% of patients were diagnosed with stage III or IV disease. The mean (SD) time from index to initiation of first-line treatment was 35 (20) days in the CCMC cohort and 51 ( 19) days in the SEER-M cohort. Advanced OC patients most frequently received platinum-/taxane-based regimens, with carboplatin/paclitaxel used in 63% and 67% of patients, respectively. Bevacizumabcontaining regimens were utilized in 7% of CCMC OC patients and 5% of SEER-M OC patients, with bevacizumab/carboplatin/paclitaxel combination being the most common. ConClusions: Results: suggest that platinum-containing chemotherapy remains the standard-of-care for advanced OC patients in the US. Despite differences in age between the two OC cohorts, similar treatment patterns were observed.

A875substantially higher objective response rates favouring patients receiving nivolumab (25.1% vs 5.4%; odds ratio: 5.98, P< 0.001) was observed in this trial. The aim of this analysis was to compare the monthly cost per responder with nivolumab versus everolimus in the Brazilian private healthcare system perspective. Methods: This analysis was based on investigator-based patient-level data from a randomized phase III trial. ORR was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved a partial or complete response. Costs were calculated based on drug, administration, and managing of grade 1-4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) reported on Checkmate 025. Drug costs for nivolumab and everolimus were obtained from the official Brazilian price list (Feb/2017) by CMED. The management of TRAEs was obtained through a Delphi panel, followed by microcosting of resources obtained from public sources (Kairos and Simpro Magazine n105/2016 for drugs and materials, CBHPM 2016 for medical appointments and procedures, and UNIDAS National Research 2015 for hospitalizations). Monthly cost per objective response was calculated by dividing the average monthly cost per patient by ORR. Results: Median duration of treatment was 5.

No abstract

No abstract

specialists. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and administration, follow-up, CNS progression and end-of-life care. Costs were extracted from official sources, while health resource usage was defined by a multidisciplinary team. All costs were based on the 2019 Brazilian private healthcare system perspective (1 BRL = 0.27 USD) and a 5% discount rate was applied for costs and effectiveness. Utilities were extracted from the quality-of-life assessment at ALEX trial. Validity of the results were evaluated on sensitivity analyses. Results: Overall, alectinib improved quality-adjusted life-years gained in 0.87, with a cost decrease of 41,742 BRL (11,270 USD), thus, being dominant over crizotinib. The result was driven mostly by the reduction in CNS progression costs and PFS utility. Most of the probabilistic iterations (.90%) were located on the I and IV cost-effectiveness plane quadrants, demonstrating the model robustness and alectinib's superiority in effectiveness. Conclusions: Alectinib was dominant over crizotinib in treating naive ALK+ NSCLC patients under the Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, offering higher effectiveness and lower global treatment costs.