Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether use of a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor is cost effective for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: A decision analysis model compared four maintenance strategies: 1) observation, 2) BRCA germline mutation testing and selective treatment of carriers (gBRCA only), 3) BRCA germline and tumor homologous recombination deficiency testing and selective treatment of either BRCA carriers or those with tumor HRD (gBRCA and HRD only), and 4) treat all with niraparib to progression (treat all). Costs were estimated in 2016 U.S. dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in dollars per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses tested multiple assumptions. RESULTS: Maintenance poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor was costlier and more effective than observation. Mean costs and progression-free QALYs were $827 and 3.4 months for observation, $46,157 and 5.7 for a BRCA-only strategy, $109,368 and 8.5 for a gBRCA and homologous recombination deficiency-only strategy, and $169,127 and 8.8 for a treat-all strategy. gBRCA-only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $243,092/progression-free QALY compared with observation; other strategies did not approach cost effectiveness. Using the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration label for maintenance poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor regardless of biomarker status, the third-party payer cost per month (28-day supply) would need to be reduced from approximately $14,700 to $3,600 to be considered cost effective compared with observation using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/progression-free QALY. CONCLUSION: Maintenance poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Treatment of patients with BRCA mutation alone or with homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors are preferred strategies compared with a treat-all strategy. Lowering the cost may make selective niraparib maintenance therapy cost effective compared with observation.