1129P - Real World Treatment Costs and Resource Utilization among Patients with Metastatic Bladder Cancer

Date 10 September 2017
Event ESMO 2017 Congress
Session Poster display session
Topics Cancers in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA)
Urothelial Cancers
Bioethics, Legal, and Economic Issues
Genitourinary Cancers
Presenter Kyle Flannery
Citation Annals of Oncology (2017) 28 (suppl_5): v395-v402. 10.1093/annonc/mdx375
Authors K. Flannery1, X. Cao1, J. He1, Y. Zhong1, A.Y. Shah2, A. Kamat3
  • 1Oncology Research, MSD, 19454 - North Wales/US
  • 2Genitourinary Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 77030-4095 - Houston/US
  • 3Department Of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 77030-4095 - Houston/US



First-line (1L) cisplatin, followed by second-line (2L) taxane or other systemic chemotherapy, has been the historic standard of care in metastatic bladder cancer (mBC). Little is known regarding longitudinal costs and resources consumed during treatment of mBC patient (pts). This study investigated drug utilization, health care (HC) resource use, and disease-related costs among pts with mBC.


Pts with an initial diagnosis of mBC between Jan 2007 - Dec 2011 were retrospectively identified using SEER-Medicare linked data. Annual survival rates were calculated for treated and untreated pts. Total costs were estimated during the treatment exposure window for HC visits and treatment for mBC-related, AE-related, and other costs; all costs were converted to 2016 US dollars.


Overall, 411 eligible pts received 1L therapy and 189 (46.0%) subsequently received 2L therapy. For all 1L treated pts, the 1, 2, and 3-year survival rates from mBC diagnosis were 56.5%, 25.6%, and 15.5%, compared to 12.9%, 6.0%, and 4.7% for untreated pts (n = 804). For 2L pts, the 1, 2, and 3-year survival rates from 2L treatment initiation were 32.8%, 14.9%, and 7.7%. For all regimens, the highest per-patient cost occurred in the outpatient setting, followed closely by emergency, then inpatient, SNF, and lastly by hospice.Table:

1129P Costs Incurred During the Treatment Exposure Window for 1L and 2L mBC Therapies

OutcomeTreatment Group
OverallCisplatin-based regimenCarboplatin-based regimenNon-platinum-based regimen
Sample size, n (%)411 (100%)189 (100%)162 (39.4%)22 (11.6%)185 (45.0%)71 (37.6%)64 (15.6%)95 (50.8%)
Total cost per patient, mean (SD)$36,793 ($28,754)$26,732 ($21,143)$35,570 ($25,770)$25,267 ($16,494)$38,751 ($29,864)$30,279 ($23,298)$34,228 ($32,509)$24,443 ($20,233)
mBC-related cost per patient, mean (SD)$18,246 ($16,655)$12,939 ($13,340)$19,316 ($16,660)$13,529 ($11,872)$18,769 ($16,667)$14,980 ($16,837)$14,028 ($16,213)$11,294 ($10,304)
AE-related cost per patient, mean (SD)$7,629 ($12,399)$4,988 ($9,471)$6,240 ($10,814)$4,170 (6,473)$8,503 ($11,931)$5,374 ($7,345)$8,618 ($16,663)$4,889 ($11,324)
Other costs per patient, mean (SD)$12,990 ($16,906)$10,363 ($14,753)$11,900 ($15,817)$7,992 ($6,823)$13,708 ($17,587)$11,468 ($16,895)$13,673 ($17,670)$10,090 ($14,416)


In general, mBC pts had poor survival outcomes, particularly for untreated pts. Less than half of mBC pts received guideline-endorsed 1L cis-combo therapy. mBC-related outpatient and emergency HC utilization were primary drivers of the per-patient economic burden. During the treatment exposure window, total costs were considerable across treatment regimens, with the average total cost during 1L and 2L treatment exceeding sixty thousand dollars per patient.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA provided funding for this study, yet the authors take full responsibility for the work as a whole, including the study design, access to data reported in the manuscript, and the decision to submit and publish the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript to be published.


Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA


K. Flannery, X. Cao, J. He, Y. Zhong: Employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. A. Kamat: Research funding: FKD Industries; Photocure; Merck; and Heat Biologics. Consulting or advisory role: Cepheid; Photocure; Telesta Therapeutics; Sanofi; Merck; Abbott Molecular; Theralase; Heat Biologics; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; and Oncogenix. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.