Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a review of health technology assessments (HTAs) in cervical cancer screening to highlight the most common metrics HTA agencies use to evaluate and recommend cervical cancer screening technologies.Methods: The Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), MedLine, and national HTA agency databases were searched using keywords (“cervical cancer screening” OR “cervical cancer” OR “cervical screening”) and “HTA” from January 2000 to October 2014. Non-English language reports without English summaries, non-HTA reports, HTAs unrelated to a screening intervention and HTAs without sufficient summaries available online were excluded. We used various National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methods to extract key assessment criteria and to determine whether a change in screening practice was recommended.Results: One hundred and ten unique HTA reports were identified; forty-four HTAs from seventeen countries met inclusion criteria. All reports evaluated technologies for use among women. Ten cervical screening technologies were identified either as an intervention or a comparator. The most common outcome metric evaluated was diagnostic accuracy, followed by economic effectiveness. Additional outcome metrics such as the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific testing were commonly evaluated. Nearly one-third (fifteen of forty-four) of HTAs recommended a change in practice.Conclusions: This review highlights popular metrics used in HTAs for cervical cancer screening. Clinical and economic effectiveness metrics have been consistently assessed in HTAs, while the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific screening became increasingly prevalent from after 2007. Moreover, we observed an increase in optimized recommendations after 2007.

No abstract

e16539 Background: SREs are associated with increased mortality and costs for mCRPC patients. The impact of mCRPC oral therapies on SREs is not well understood in the real world. This study examined the occurrence of and health care costs associated with SREs among mCRPC patients treated with abiraterone acetate + prednisone (ABI) or enzalutamide (ENZ). Methods: A retrospective study of a large national health claims database identified patients initiated on ABI or ENZ from 9/2012- 6/2015. Patients included had: ≥1 claim with prostate cancer diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 185.x) from 6 mo. pre- to 30 days post-index; ≥6 mo. pre- + ≥3 mo. post-index health plan enrollment. Index was date initiated on first oral therapy (ABI/ENZ). SREs (spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, pathological fracture, bone surgery) were assessed and health care cost calculated for patients with/without SREs in baseline/follow-up. Descriptive analyses and Cox proportional hazards examined SREs; generalized linear models assessed costs. Models adjusted for ABI/ENZ, age, region, baseline comorbidities, bone/brain/visceral metastases, docetaxel, and statin use. Results: The table below summarizes unadjusted results. Total all-cause per patient per month (PPPM) costs of 1,516 patients were highest for those with follow-up SREs. A significant difference in cost exists when comparing across all groups. Among patients without baseline SREs, adjusted analysis found greater hazards of follow-up SREs for baseline bone metastases (HR: 1.62, P = 0.003), baseline visceral metastases (HR: 1.68, P < 0.001), prior docetaxel (HR: 1.46, P = 0.004), and ENZ (vs. ABI) as first treatment (HR: 1.35, P = 0.013). Patients with follow-up SREs (with/without baseline SREs) had 19% higher adjusted costs compared to those without baseline or follow-up SREs (P < 0.001 each). Conclusions: SREs were common among mCRPC patients and associated with a significant financial burden. [Table: see text]

e16534 Background: mCRPC patients are likely to receive oral therapies such as ABI or ENZ prior to hospice care. Payers and clinicians perceive hospice care as improving the quality of life for advanced prostate cancer patients dying of cancer, but literature suggests that it may be underutilized. A previous study found a longer time to starting hospice for patients initiated on ABI (vs. ENZ) with no significant difference in time spent in hospice. Understanding the active-treatment period prior to hospice may shed light on the overall burden of treatment without discounting the benefits of hospice. This study examined total pre-hospice per patient per month (PPPM) costs among mCRPC patients who utilized hospice care and treated with ABI or ENZ. Methods: A retrospective study of a large national health claims database identified patients initiated on ABI or ENZ from 09/2012 to 06/2015. Patients included had: ≥1 claim with a prostate cancer diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 185.xx) from 6 mo. pre- to 30 days post-index; ≥6 mo. pre- and ≥3 mo. post-index health plan enrollment. Index was date initiated on first oral therapy (ABI/ENZ). The subset of patients who entered hospice care were identified. Descriptive analyses assessed total PPPM costs (pharmacy, ambulatory, ER, inpatient, other medical costs) for subset of pre-hospice patients and all patients. Generalized linear model (GLM) assessed adjusted pre-hospice costs. Since the GLM used a log-link function with cost as a dependent variable, results are interpreted as a ratio of costs. Results: Among 1,516 mCRPC patients, 213 had utilized hospice care (ABI: 161, ENZ: 52). Total pre-hospice PPPM cost was greater for patients initiated on ENZ (ENZ = $19,485 ABI = $13,252; p = 0.048). Adjusted analysis found a 25.8% greater PPPM cost for those patients (Cost Ratio = 1.26, p = 0.038). Among all 1,516 patients, total all-cause PPPM cost was higher in ENZ but not statistically significant (ENZ = $11,268 ABI = $10,520; p = 0.090). Total prostate cancer related PPPM cost was statistically significant (ENZ = $10,327 ABI = $9,477, p = 0.038). Conclusions: Total pre-hospice PPPM cost is 26% lower for mCRPC patients initiated on ABI vs. ENZ.