Evaluation of Metronomic Therapy as a Low-Cost, Sustainable, Standard-of-Care Option in Desmoid Fibromatosis: Real-World Data From a Tertiary Care Center in India.

PURPOSE: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) is a locally aggressive tumor with low mortality but significant morbidity. There is a lack of standard of care, and existing therapies are associated with significant barriers including access, cost, and toxicities. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the metronomic therapy (MT) in DF in a large, homogenous cohort from India. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved histologically confirmed DF cases treated with MT comprising vinblastine (6 mg) and methotrexate (15 mg) both once a week, and tamoxifen (40 mg/m2) in two divided doses once daily between 2002 and 2018. RESULTS: There were 315 patients with a median age of 27 years; the commonest site was extremity (142 of 315; 45.0%). There were 159 (50.1%) male patients. Of the 123 (39.0%) prior treated patients, 119 had surgery. Of 315 patients, 263 (83.5%) received treatment at our institute (MT-151, 77-local treatment, 9-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and 26 were observed). Among the MT cohort (n = 163, 61.2%), at a median follow-up of 36 (0.5-186) months, the 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 81.1% (95% CI, 74.3 to 88.4) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6 to 100), respectively. There were 35% partial responses. Ninety-two patients (56.4%) completed 1-year therapy, which was an independent prognosticator (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 0.177 [95% CI, 0.083 to 0.377]). MT was well tolerated. Predominant grade ≥3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia, 12 (7.4%) without any chemotoxicity-related death. The annual cost of MT was $130 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The novel, low-cost MT qualifies as one of the effective, less toxic, sustainable, standard-of-care options for the treatment of DF with global reach and merits wide recognition.

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.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective. Methods: A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab. Conclusion: The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Real-world total cost of care by line of therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

AIMS: There are multiple recently approved treatments and a lack of clear standard-of-care therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). While total cost of care (TCC) by the number of lines of therapy (LoTs) has been evaluated, more recent cost estimates using real-world data are needed. This analysis assessed real-world TCC of R/R DLBCL therapies by LoT using the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (1 January 2015-31 December 2021), in US patients aged ≥18 years treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or an R-CHOP-like regimen as first-line therapy. METHODS: Treatment costs and resources in the R/R setting were assessed by LoT. A sensitivity analysis identified any potential confounding of the results caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare utilization and costs. Overall, 310 patients receiving a second- or later-line treatment were included; baseline characteristics were similar across LoTs. Inpatient costs represented the highest percentage of total costs, followed by outpatient and pharmacy costs. RESULTS: Mean TCC per-patient-per-month generally increased by LoT ($40,604, $48,630, and $59,499 for second-, third- and fourth-line treatments, respectively). Costs were highest for fourth-line treatment for all healthcare resource utilization categories. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the overall analysis, indicating results were not confounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. LIMITATIONS: There was potential misclassification of LoT; claims data were processed through an algorithm, possibly introducing errors. A low number of patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients who switched insurance plans, had insurance terminated, or whose enrollment period met the end of data availability may have had truncated follow-up, potentially resulting in underestimated costs. CONCLUSION: Total healthcare costs increased with each additional LoT in the R/R DLBCL setting. Further improvements of first-line treatments that reduce the need for subsequent LoTs would potentially lessen the economic burden of DLBCL.

Real-World Survival, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Costs Among U.S. Elderly Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Treated With R-GemOx in the Relapsed/Refractory Setting.

BACKGROUND: Little recent real-world evidence exists on overall survival, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among R/R DLBCL patients treated with the combination of rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx), a widely-used regimen for patients ineligible for stem cell transplant due to age or comorbidities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis used 2014 to 2019 U.S. Medicare claims. Individuals aged ≥66 years with a new DLBCL diagnosis between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018 and continuous fee-for-service Medicare Part A, B, and D coverage in the 12 months pre- and postindex were followed to identify the sample of patients with evidence of R-GemOx treatment in the second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) setting. Outcomes included overall survival, all-cause and DLBCL-related HCRU, and costs after R-GemOx initiation. RESULTS: The final sample included 157 patients who received treatment with R-GemOx in the R/R settings (mean (SD) age 77.5 (6.0) years, 39.5% age>80 years; 66.9% male; 91.1% White). Of these, 126 received R-GemOx in the 2L setting and 31 received R-GemOx in the 3L setting. Median overall survival from R-GemOx initiation was 6.9 months and 6.8 months in the 2L and 3L setting, respectively. Rates of all-cause hospitalization (68.1% [2L] and >90% [3L]) and hospice use (42.9% [2L] and 51.7% [3L]) were high in the 12 months after R-GemOx initiation. All-cause total costs were substantial ($144,653 [2L] and $142,812 [3L]) and approximately 80% of costs were DLBCL-related within 12 months of R-GemOx initiation. CONCLUSION: Elderly U.S. Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with DLBCL who initiated R-GemOx treatment in the R/R setting have poor overall survival, high rates of HCRU, and substantial costs.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed. RESULTS: Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab). CONCLUSION: LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Economic evaluation of toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Background and objective: The CHOICE-01 trial showed that toripalimab plus chemotherapy achieved satisfactory outcomes compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were negative for driver genes, but the economics of this regimen is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with adding toripalimab to first-line chemotherapy. The clinical data in the model came from the CHOICE-01 trial, only direct medical costs were included, and utility values were referred to the literature. Four models were applied to explore the differences in the results of fitting and extrapolating K-M curves from different models, and cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis was performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the main outcome measure. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The baseline analysis showed that toripalimab coupled with chemotherapy cost $21,052 more than chemotherapy ($43,197 vs. $22,145) and also gained 0.71 QALYs more (1.75 QALYs vs. 1.03 QALYs), with an ICER of $29,478/QALYs. At the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($35,108/QALY), the extra cost was well worth it. The results of fitting and extrapolating the survival curves using other models were consistent with the results of the standard parametric model. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy was economical. Sensitivity analysis showed that the utility values of PD and PFS stages had the greatest impact on the model. Conclusion: From the viewpoint of the Chinese healthcare system, toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021. Exposures: Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY. Results: During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy for previously untreated CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphoma in Canada.

AIMS: To support reimbursement requests in Canada, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as frontline treatment for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) using results from the ECHELON-2 clinical trial. The PTCL subtypes included were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL), PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival [PPS], and death) was constructed from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy, safety, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were obtained from ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were derived from Canadian literature and standard sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in key parameters. All costs are reported in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A + CHP, when compared with CHOP, was associated with an estimated mean gain of 2.90 LYs and 2.38 QALYs and a mean incremental cost of $76,491. The ICER for A + CHP compared with CHOP was estimated at $26,340 per LY gained and $32,177 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICERs remained below $60,000 per QALY gained. Time horizon, patient starting age, and discount rate affected the results, as the ICER was driven by long-term survival gains observed with A + CHP compared with CHOP. LIMITATIONS: Real-world downstream treatments (such as stem cell transplantation) may differ from the treatment protocol followed in the ECHELON-2 trial. CONCLUSIONS: A + CHP compared with CHOP provides a cost-effective treatment option with improved clinical outcomes that are clinically relevant and a comparable safety profile for adults with previously untreated CD30-expressing sALCL, PTCL-NOS, or AITL in Canada.

The epidemiology, treatment patterns, healthcare utilizations and costs of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) in Taiwan.

BACKGROUNDS: An increasing incidence of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) has been reported in several Western countries. However, the epidemiology of AML in Asia is very limited. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline of AML, a range of conventional therapy options is available to AML patients. Nevertheless, different treatment strategies may result in diverse healthcare utilization and costs. Understanding the treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs of AML would thus be essential for clinicians and policymakers to optimize the treatment strategies of AML. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence, treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs of AML in Taiwan using a nationwide population database. METHODS: We retrospectively identified AML patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2015 from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database (TCRD) and estimated the epidemiology of AML in Taiwan. The TCRD was linked to National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) to collect the treatment patterns and health care utilization. Patients diagnosed with AML from 2011 to 2015 were further identified to analyze treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs. RESULTS: The crude annual incidence of AML increased from 2.78 to 3.21 cases per 100,000 individuals from 2006 to 2015. However, the age-standardized rate (ASRs) of AML slightly declined from 2.47 to 2.41 cases per 100,000 individuals in the same period. Among 2,179 AML patients who received induction therapy (median age: 56 years), most of them (n = 1744; 80.04%) received standard-dose cytarabine (SDAC) regimen. The remaining 162 patients received high dose cytarabine (HDAC) and 273 patients received non-standard dose cytarabine (N-SDAC) regimen as the induction therapy. The median medical costs in our study for patients treated with chemotherapy alone was $42,271 for HDAC, $36,199 for SDAC and $36,250 for N-SDAC. For those who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) after induction therapy, their median medical costs were $78,876 for HDAC, $78,593 for SDAC and $79,776 for N-SDAC. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first population-based study conducted in Asia to provide updated and comprehensive information on epidemiology, treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs of AML.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. METHODS: A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

Rising drug cost impacts on cost-effectiveness of 2 chemotherapy regimens for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The Children's Oncology Group clinical trial for intermediate risk rhabdomyosarcoma randomized participants to a combination of vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) alone or VAC alternating with vincristine plus irinotecan (VAC/VI). Clinical outcomes were similar, but toxicity profiles differed. This study estimates the cost differences between arms from the health care system's perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of VAC versus VAC/VI. Protocol-required or recommended medications and laboratory studies were included. Costs were obtained from national databases or supporting literature and inflated to 2019 US dollars. Demographic and outcome data were obtained from the clinical trial and directed chart reviews. Life-years (LY) were estimated from life-expectancy tables and discounted by 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and alternative clinical scenarios identified factors driving costs. RESULTS: Mean direct medical costs of VAC and VAC/VI were $164,757 and $102,303, respectively. VAC was associated with an additional 0.97 LY and an ICER of $64,386/LY compared with VAC/VI. The ICER was sensitive to survival estimations and to alternative clinical scenarios including outpatient cyclophosphamide delivery (ICER $49,037/LY) or substitution of alternative hematopoietic growth factor schedules (ICER $73,191-$91,579/LY). Applying drug prices from 2012 decreased the total costs of VAC by 20% and VAC/VI by 15% because of changes in dactinomycin and pegfilgrastim prices. CONCLUSIONS: Neither arm was clearly more cost-effective. Pharmaceutical pricing and location of treatment drove costs and may inform future treatment decisions. Rising pharmaceutical costs added $30,000 per patient, a finding important for future drug-pricing policy decisions. LAY SUMMARY: Two chemotherapy regimens recently tested side-by-side for rhabdomyosarcoma had similar tumor outcomes, but different side effects. The health care costs of each regimen were compared; neither was clearly more cost-effective. However, the costs of each treatment changed dramatically with choices of supportive medicines and location of treatment. Costs of treatment rose by 15% to 20% because of rising US drug costs not associated with the clinical trial.

Cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy could significantly improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, its long-term economic outcomes remain unclear yet. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model with 10-year horizon was developed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding durvalumab to first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC. The primary outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.25 QALYs, with incremental costs of 76,354 USD, resulting in an ICER of 302,051 USD/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone, when PAP was available, the ICER was 192,591 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effectiveness in China.