Cost-effectiveness analysis of transarterial chemoembolization combined with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Purpose: Results from the LAUNCH trial suggest transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in combination with lenvatinib is significantly more effective than lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost of TACE is substantial. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of TACE in combination with lenvatinib (TACE-LEN) with that of lenvatinib alone as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models of different health states were constructed to simulate first-line treatment, disease progression, and survival in patients with advanced HCC. Clinical efficacy was obtained from the LAUNCH trial. The cost of drugs was sourced from national tender prices, and the treatment cost of weight-decreased was obtained from the Fujian Provincial Bureau of Prices. Other costs and utility values were based on the published literature. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comprised the model output. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate model robustness and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Results: Analysis of the model showed that compared to lenvatinib, TACE-LEN improved effectiveness by 1.60 QALYs at a total cost increase of $48,874.69, with an ICER value of $30,482.13/QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the progression-free survival utility value per year had the greatest impact on the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that TACE-LEN had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value was $38,201/QALY (three times the Chinese GDP per capita in 2022). Subgroup analysis showed that all subgroups of patients preferred TACE-LEN. However, when the WTP threshold was below $30,300/QALY, TACE-LEN is no longer cost-effective. Conclusion: Our study found TACE-LEN to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, but not so in low-income provinces in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 as the first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Background: The SPOTLIGHT trial demonstrated that zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (ZOL-FO) as a first-line regimen compared with placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (PLB-FO) conferred clinical benefits to patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. However, due to the high cost of zolbetuximab, whether ZOL-FO is cost-effective compared with PLB-FO is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models with three different health states were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the SPOTLIGHT trial; the drug's cost was calculated at national bid prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model's robustness was verified using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The ZOL-FO group gained 1.64 QALYs at $87,746.35, while the PLB-FO group gained 1.23 QALYs at $11,947.81. The ICER for ZOL-FO versus PLB-FO was $185,353.28 per QALY gained. The parameters exerting an important impact on the model results were the price of zolbetuximab, body surface area, and progression-free survival utility. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALY, ZOL-FO had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness compared with PLB-FO. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, ZOL-FO is unlikely to be cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer.

Background: A recent phase III clinical trial (NCT03981796) evaluated the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (DOS-CP) compared to placebo combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (PLB-CP) as a first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC). The NCT03981796 trial demonstrated that DOS-CP significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with advanced EC while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. However, DOS-CP is expensive and its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP compared to PLB-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC. Clinical efficacy data were derived from the NCT03981796 trial, and drug costs were determined based on national tender prices. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes assessed included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: In comparison to PLB-CP, the ICER of DOS-CP was $98,276.61/QALY for the overall population, $53,063.61/QALY for the dMMR subgroup, and $124,088.56/QALY for the pMMR subgroup. All of these ICER values were higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The most important variable that affected the results of the model was the discount rate, the cost of dostarlimab, and the utility value for progressive disease. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, DOS-CP is unlikely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced EC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Background: Sintilimab plus chemotherapy (SIDCHM) is more effective than placebo plus chemotherapy (PLCHM) for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, considering the high cost of sintilimab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SIDCHM in comparison with PLCHM for advanced or metastatic ESCC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: Polymorphic Markov models were constructed to simulate the course and cost of SIDCHM. Treatment drug costs were calculated at national list prices and clinical data, other costs, and utility values were extracted from the reference literature. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was verified by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results: SIDCHM obtained 1.03 QALYs at $24,044.49, whereas the effectiveness and cost of PLCHM were 0.67 QALYs and $14,166.24, respectively. The ICER for SIDCHM versus PLCHM was $23,458.08/QALY. The utility of the PFS state was the parameter that had the greatest effect on the ICER. The PSA showed that SIDCHM had an 86% probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3* Chinese gross domestic product per capita ($37,653/QALY). Conclusion: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, SIDCHM is considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PLCHM as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic ESCC.

SHCBP1 Is a Prognostic Biomarker Related to the Tumour Immune Microenvironment in Pan-Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Shc SH2 domain-binding protein (SHCBP1) is involved in regulating tumour progression in a variety of tumour types. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic landscape of SHCBP1 in pan-cancer and investigate the relationship between SHCBP1 expression and tumour immune microenvironment. METHODS: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and genotype tissue expression (GTEx) database were used for obtaining the required data for the evaluation of SHCBP1 expression. The clinical characteristics and prognostic role of SHCBP1 were analyzed by using TCGA cohort. This was followed by gene set enrichment analysis by R software. Based on TCGA pan-cancer data, the correlation between SHCBP1 expression and immune infiltration, immune-related genes, microsatellite instability (MSI), and tumour mutational burden (TMB) was discussed. Finally, the half-maximum inhibitory concentration (IC50) values of 192 anti-cancer drugs were obtained from the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) database and their correlation with SHCBP1 was analyzed. RESULTS: SHCBP1 was upregulated in most tumours showing a significant association with poor prognosis. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed SHCBP1 relation to the immunity, cell cycle, and cancer pathway in various types of tumour. SHCBP1 expression also showed a positive correlation with tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs) and immunosuppressive genes including TGFBR1, PD-L1 and TGFB1 and so on. In addition, high expression of SHCBP1 in patients was associated with resistance to a variety of anti-tumour drugs. CONCLUSION: The present study confirms SHCBP1 as a poor prognostic marker of cancers. Its high expression is suggested to be involved in immunological resistance to a variety of anti-tumour drugs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab combined with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

Background: The findings of the CAPSTONE-1 trial showed that adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy (etoposide-carboplatin) (ADCHM) is clinically beneficial as a first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), compared with placebo plus chemotherapy (PLCHM, etoposide-carboplatin). However, owing to the higher cost of adebrelimab, it is unclear whether ADCHM is cost-effective compared with PLCHM. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ADCHM as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model with three health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ADCHM as a first-line treatment option with ES-SCLC. Clinical data were obtained from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Costs of the drug were calculated at national tender prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes included life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to validate the robustness of the model. Results: The ADCHM group achieved 1.21 QALYs (2.47 LYs) for $25,312, whereas the PLCHM group achieved 0.81 QALYs (1.59 LYs) for $14,846. The ICER for ADCHM versus PLCHM was $25914 per QALY gained. The variables with the greatest impact on the model results were the utility value of progressive disease, the utility value of progression-free survival, and the price of adebrelimab (100 mg). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY, ADCHM had an 89.1% probability of being cost-effective compared with PLCHM. Conclusion: ADCHM may be a cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Versus Gemcitabine Plus Oxaliplatin as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancers.

Background: In the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancers (BTCs), XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) showed comparable clinical efficacy and safety to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX), with fewer visits and better treatment management. Our study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of XELOX and GEMOX as the first-line therapy for BTCs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare systems and to provide valuable suggestions for clinical decision-making. Methods: A Markov model was developed using the phase 3 randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01470443) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of XELOX and GEMOX. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used as the primary outcomes of the model. Uncertainty was assessed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The QALYs for the XELOX and GEMOX groups were 0.66 and 0.54, respectively. In China, the total cost of XELOX treatment is US $12,275.51, which is lower than that of the GEMOX regimen. In addition, XELOX is more effective than GEMOX, making it the preferred regimen. A sensitivity analysis determined that XELOX therapy has a stable economic advantage in China. Conclusion: Compared to GEMOX, XELOX is a more cost-effective treatment as a first-line treatment for advanced BTC from the perspective of the Chinese health service system.