Impact of Polatuzumab Vedotin as First-Line Therapy for DLBCL on Subsequent Treatments: Brazilian Model
Author(s)
Samir Nabhan, MSc1, Douglas Castro, Bachelor2, Veronica E. Mata, MBA, MSc, PhD3.
1Hospital de Clínicas de Curitiba – Universidade Federal do Paraná, Paraná, Brazil, 2F. Hoffman-La Roche, São Paulo, Brazil, 3Market access & HTA Manager, F. Hoffman-La Roche, SAO PAULO, Brazil.
1Hospital de Clínicas de Curitiba – Universidade Federal do Paraná, Paraná, Brazil, 2F. Hoffman-La Roche, São Paulo, Brazil, 3Market access & HTA Manager, F. Hoffman-La Roche, SAO PAULO, Brazil.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: To analyze the impact of polatuzumab vedotin (Pola-R-CHP) as first line (1L) therapy for Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or high-risk DLBCL when compared with R-CHOP, using the same sequence of treatments in a decision tree analysis.
METHODS: Quantitative analysis based on an expert panel discussion about a sequence of treatments model in DLBCL analyzed using a decision tree. The model includes two comparisons: all DLBCL patients treated with Pola-R-CHP as 1L vs. patients treated with R-CHOP (scenario A) and high-risk DLBCL patients (ABC diagnosis) treated with Pola-R-CHP as 1L vs. patients treated with R-CHOP (scenario B). The model uses progression disease rate and market share of the different treatments based on clinical evidence and expert panel opinions, respectively.
RESULTS: One hundred patients initiated the sequence of treatment. For scenario A the number of patients that progressed using R-CHOP to 2L is 30. After 2L treatments, 24 progressed to 3L and 19 to 4L. When these patients were treated with Pola-R-CHP in 1L, 23 progressed to 2L, 19 to 3L and 15 to 4L. For scenario B, 41 patients progressed after using R-CHOP as a 1L, 34 progressed to 3L and 27 to 4L. On the other hand, 16 patients progressed to 2L after using Pola-R-CHP in 1L, 13 to 3L, and 10 to 4L.
CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates the impact of treatment with Pola-R-CHP in 1L in terms of the number of patients with progression-free survival and the possibility of a cure, as well as the reduced necessity for other lines of treatment that have lower efficacy and may have higher costs. This information could help decision makers engage in discussions based on evidence and value for patients and healthcare systems, promoting more efficiency and visibility in terms of budget impact and resource allocation.
METHODS: Quantitative analysis based on an expert panel discussion about a sequence of treatments model in DLBCL analyzed using a decision tree. The model includes two comparisons: all DLBCL patients treated with Pola-R-CHP as 1L vs. patients treated with R-CHOP (scenario A) and high-risk DLBCL patients (ABC diagnosis) treated with Pola-R-CHP as 1L vs. patients treated with R-CHOP (scenario B). The model uses progression disease rate and market share of the different treatments based on clinical evidence and expert panel opinions, respectively.
RESULTS: One hundred patients initiated the sequence of treatment. For scenario A the number of patients that progressed using R-CHOP to 2L is 30. After 2L treatments, 24 progressed to 3L and 19 to 4L. When these patients were treated with Pola-R-CHP in 1L, 23 progressed to 2L, 19 to 3L and 15 to 4L. For scenario B, 41 patients progressed after using R-CHOP as a 1L, 34 progressed to 3L and 27 to 4L. On the other hand, 16 patients progressed to 2L after using Pola-R-CHP in 1L, 13 to 3L, and 10 to 4L.
CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates the impact of treatment with Pola-R-CHP in 1L in terms of the number of patients with progression-free survival and the possibility of a cure, as well as the reduced necessity for other lines of treatment that have lower efficacy and may have higher costs. This information could help decision makers engage in discussions based on evidence and value for patients and healthcare systems, promoting more efficiency and visibility in terms of budget impact and resource allocation.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE205
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
SDC: Oncology