Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers. METHODS: A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model. RESULTS: The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust. CONCLUSION: As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. RESULTS: From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. CONCLUSION: After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03434379. LAY SUMMARY: The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Efficacy of First Line Systemic Chemotherapy and Multikinase Inhibitors in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most fatal cancer, with a 5-year survival rate of 18%. Standard frontline-therapy is multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), but accessibility is still limited, particularly in developing countries. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of usual chemotherapy vs MKIs. METHOD: Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any among chemotherapy vs MKIs in treatment-naïve patients with advanced HCCs were identified from MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) probabilities and times were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves using Digitizer, and then converted to individual patient time-to-event data. A one-stage mixed-effect survival model was applied to estimate median OS and PFS. A two-stage NMA was applied for the overall response rate and adverse events (AEs) outcome. RESULTS: A total of 20 RCTs were eligible for NMA. Lenvatinib was the best treatment among single MKIs, with median OS and PFS of 9 and 6.3 months, without significant differences in AEs relative to other MKIs. Median OS and PFS were 0.70 (-0.42, 1.83) and 2.17 (1.41, 2.93) months longer with Lenvatinib than Sorafenib. Among chemotherapy agents, FOLFOX4 had the longest median OS and PFS at 7.9 and 4.3 months, respectively, without significant AEs compared to other chemotherapies. The combination of Sorafenib+Doxorubicin prolonged median OS and PFS to 12.7 and 6.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of the MKIs Lenvatinib or Sorafenib as first line systemic treatment for advanced HCC could be beneficial. However, FOLFOX4 might be the optimal choice in a developing country where the health-care budget is limited.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open-label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS: The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost-effective strategy for the first-line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

Healthcare utilization and total costs of care among patients with advanced metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer.

Aim: Study first-line (1L) treatment patterns and economic outcomes among patients with advanced metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and esophageal cancer (EC). Materials & methods: Newly diagnosed patients with systemic GC and EC treatments were identified between 1 January 2011 and 31 July 2017; costs were presented as per patient per month (PPPM) basis. Results: Study included 392 GC and 436 EC patients. Most frequently used 1L regimens were: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + oxaliplatin (22.5%) and epirubicin + cisplatin + 5-FU (ECF)/ECF modifications (21.9%) in patients with GC; and carboplatin + paclitaxel (29.6%) and 5-FU + oxaliplatin (11.5%) in EC patients. Mean all-cause costs were US$16,242 PPPM for GC, and $18,384 PPPM for EC during 1L treatment. Conclusion: GC and EC were resource intensive and costly. High costs and short treatment durations underscored a gap in care in 1L treatment.