Borah, Bijan J

AbstractBackgroundThe VESPER trial demonstrated improved progression‐free (PFS) and (preliminarily) overall survival (OS) with six cycles of neoadjuvant dose‐dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (ddMVACx6) versus four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GCx4) before radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC), but with increased toxicity. This study compares the cost‐effectiveness of these regimens.MethodsA cost‐effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was performed using a decision‐analytic Markov model with 5‐year, 10‐year, and lifetime horizons. Probabilities were derived from reported VESPER data. Utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were effectiveness measured in quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model.ResultsAt 5 years, ddMVACx6 improved QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of $16,100, rendering it cost‐effective relative to GCx4 (ICER: $53,284/QALY). Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found ddMVACx6 to be cost‐effective in 79% and 81% of microsimulations at10‐year and lifetime horizons, respectively. One‐way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a minimum difference in 5‐year progression of 0.9% and progression mortality of 0.7% between ddMVACx6 and GCx4 was necessary for ddMVACx6 to remain cost‐effective.ConclusionsNeoadjuvant ddMVACx6 was more cost‐effective than GCx4 for MIBC. These data, together with the improved PFS and (albeit preliminary) OS noted in VESPER, support use of this regimen in appropriate candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before RC.Lay summary We performed a benefit‐to‐cost analysis using evidence from a randomized controlled trial that compared two different chemotherapy treatments before bladder removal for bladder cancer that had invaded into the bladder muscle. Despite being more expensive and having a greater likelihood of toxicity, six cycles of dose‐dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was more cost‐effective (or had higher value) than four cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin.

BackgroundThe objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short‐term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD).MethodsLatinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T0) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T1). Differences were assessed with χ2, Kruskal‐Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsBetween October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T1, INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant.ConclusionsAmong Latinas in a low‐resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient‐provider discussions.

See reply on pages 3267‐70, this issue