Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC over a 10-year lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Costs and utilities were derived from the drug procurement platform and published literature. The model outcomes comprised of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty and ensure the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.337 QALYs and incremental costs of $7,117.007 compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, generating an ICER of $21,116.75 per QALY, which was between 1 time ($12,674.89/QALY) and 3 times GDP ($38,024.67/QALY) per capita. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER is most affected by the cost of oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and tislelizumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 1 or 3 times GDP per capita, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 1% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was probably cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic OSCC in China.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors as the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior clinical efficacy in prolonging overall survival (OS) as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and were recommended by the guidelines. However, it remains uncertain which ICI is the most cost-effective. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICIs as the second-line treatment for ESCC based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to obtain the Hazard ratios (HRs) for indirect comparisons. A three-state Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness. The state transition probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves data from clinical trial and HRs from the NMA. Utilities and costs were derived from local charges or previously published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to examine model robustness. The results were assessed based on the total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Five clinical trials (ATTRACTION-3, ESCORT, KEYNOTE-181, ORIENT-2, RATIONALE-302) with a total of 1797 patients were included in the NMA. The NMA showed that both camrelizumab and tislelizumab received relatively high rankings for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Compared with sintilimab, treatment with tislelizumab and camrelizumab gained 0.018 and 0.034 additional QALYs, resulting in incremental ICERs of $75,472.65/QALY and $175,681.9/QALY, respectively. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab produced lower QALYs and greater costs, suggesting that both were dominated in comparison to sintilimab. HRs and health state utilities were the most influential parameters in most univariate sensitivity analyses of paired comparisons. PSA results suggested that sintilimab had an 84.4% chance of being the most cost-effective treatment regimen at the WTP threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. In the scenario analysis, sintilimab would no longer be cost-effective, if the price of camrelizumab was assumed to decrease by 64.6% or the price of tislelizumab was assumed to decrease by 16.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among the five potential competing ICIs, sintilimab was likely to be the most cost-effective regimen as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China. METHODS: From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic evaluation based on network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several economic studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors compared to second-line chemotherapy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, there is a lack of economic comparisons among the different PD-1 inhibitors. AIM: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, camrelizumab, and tislelizumab) in second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC within the Chinese healthcare system. METHOD: The clinical trials were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We established a fractional polynomials model to conduct a network meta-analysis, enabling the calculation of hazard ratios and expected survival rates. Economic outcomes were estimated using a partitioned survival model. The costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. The threshold for willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was set at three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to address uncertainties in the model. RESULTS: Four phase III randomized controlled trials were included, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four PD-1 inhibitors, camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, compared to chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC. For camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $27,375.43/QALY, $205,312.19/QALY, $9,266.73/QALY, and $220,368.10/QALY, respectively. The SA results indicated the robustness of the base analysis findings. CONCLUSION: From the Chinese healthcare system, under the WTP of $38,253.48/QALY, tislelizumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC.

Age at Initiation and Frequency of Screening to Prevent Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in High-risk Regions: an Economic Evaluation.

The aim of this study was to identify the economic screening strategies for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in high-risk regions. We used a validated ESCC health policy model for comparing different screening strategies for ESCC. Strategies varied in terms of age at initiation and frequency of screening. Model inputs were derived from parameter calibration and published literature. We estimated the effects of each strategy on the incidence of ESCC, costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Compared with no screening, all competing screening strategies decreased the incidence of ESCC from 0.35% to 72.8%, and augmented the number of QALYs (0.002-0.086 QALYs per person) over a lifetime horizon. The screening strategies initiating at 40 years of age and repeated every 1-3 years, which gained over 70% of probabilities that was preferred in probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a $1,151/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Results were sensitive to the parameters related to the risks of developing basal cell hyperplasia/mild dysplasia. Endoscopy screening initiating at 40 years of age and repeated every 1-3 years could substantially reduce the disease burden and is cost-effective for the general population in high-risk regions.

Cost-effectiveness of chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy versus chemoradiation alone in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer usually includes a combination of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. In squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), recent studies have indicated that esophagectomy after chemoradiation does not significantly improve survival but may reduce recurrence at the cost of treatment-related mortality. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of chemoradiation with and without esophagectomy. METHODS: We developed a decision tree and Markov model to compare chemoradiation therapy alone (CRT) versus chemoradiation plus surgery (CRT+S) in a cohort of 57-year-old male patients with esophageal SCC, over 25 years. We used information on survival, cancer recurrence, and side effects from a Cochrane meta-analysis of two randomized trials. Societal utility values and costs of cancer care (2017, USD) were from medical literature. To test robustness, we conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: In our base scenario, CRT resulted in less cost for more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to CRT+S ($154 082 for 1.32 QALYs/patient versus $165 035 for 1.30 QALYs/patient, respectively). In DSA, changes resulted in scenarios where CRT+S is cost-effective at thresholds between $100 000-$150 000/QALY. In PSA, CRT+S was dominant 17.9% and cost-effective at willingness-to-pay of $150 000/QALY 38.9% of the time, and CRT was dominant 30.6% and cost-effective 61.1% of the time. This indicates that while CRT would be preferred most of the time, variation in parameters may change cost-effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that more data is needed regarding the clinical benefits of CRT+S for treatment of localized esophageal SCC, although CRT should be cautiously preferred.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma based on the NEOCRTEC5010 trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The phase 3 NEOCRTEC5010 trial demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) plus surgery for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) had significantly greater efficacy than surgery alone did, but at the same time, the addition of NCRT places an economic burden on patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of NCRT followed by surgery based on the NEOCRTEC5010 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-state Markov model (disease-free survival, relapse and death) based on data from the NEOCRTEC5010 trial was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NCRT plus surgery versus surgery alone for ESCC. The model evaluates the outcomes from the perspective of Chinese society. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the ICER in terms of 2019 US$ per QALY gained, were calculated. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with surgery alone, NCRT plus surgery increased costs by $14933.57, while gaining 3.08 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $4848.56 per QALY. The ICER was far below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($26,157 per QALY). The duration of disease-free survival (DFS) for the group that received NCRT was the crucial factor in determining the ICER. CONCLUSION: Compared with surgery alone, NCRT followed by surgery for locally advanced ESCC can be cost-effective because of significant clinical benefits.