Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab as an Adjuvant Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma Post-nephrectomy in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab was recently approved as an adjuvant treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), based on prolonged disease-free survival compared to placebo in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as monotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of RCC post-nephrectomy, from a US health sector perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states (disease-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus routine surveillance or sunitinib. Transition probabilities were estimated using patient-level KEYNOTE-564 data (cutoff: June 14, 2021), a retrospective study, and published literature. Costs of adjuvant and subsequent treatments, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2022 US$. Utilities were based on EQ-5D-5L data collected in KEYNOTE-564. Outcomes included costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Robustness was assessed through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Total cost per patient was $549,353 for pembrolizumab, $505,094 for routine surveillance, and $602,065 for sunitinib. Over a lifetime, pembrolizumab provided gains of 0.96 QALYs (1.00 LYs) compared to routine surveillance, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,327/QALY. Pembrolizumab dominated sunitinib with 0.89 QALYs (0.91 LYs) gained while saving costs. At a $150,000/QALY threshold, pembrolizumab was cost-effective versus both routine surveillance and sunitinib in 84.2% of probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab is projected to be cost-effective as an adjuvant RCC treatment versus routine surveillance or sunitinib based on a typical willingness-to-pay threshold.

Disease-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in localized renal cell carcinoma following initial nephrectomy: A retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare datac.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess whether disease-free survival (DFS) may serve as a predictor for long-term survival among patients with intermediate-high risk or high risk renal cell carcinoma (RCC) post-nephrectomy when overall survival (OS) is unavailable. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database (2007-2016) was used to identify patients with non-metastatic intermediate-high risk and high risk RCC post-nephrectomy. Landmark analysis and Kendall's τ were used to evaluate the correlation between DFS and OS. Multivariable regression models were used to quantify the incremental OS post-nephrectomy associated with increased time to recurrence among patients with recurrence, adjusting for baseline covariates. RESULTS: A total of 643 patients were analyzed; mean age of 75 years; >95% of patients had intermediate-high risk RCC at diagnosis; 269 patients had recurrence post-nephrectomy. For patients with versus without recurrence at the landmark points of 1, 3, and 5 years post-nephrectomy, the 5-year OS were 37.0% versus 70.1%, 42.3% versus 72.8%, and 53.2% versus 78.6%, respectively. The Kendall's τ between DFS and OS post-nephrectomy was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.74; p < 0.001). After adjusting for baseline covariates, patients with one additional year of time to recurrence were associated with 0.73 years longer OS post-nephrectomy (95% CI: 0.40, 1.05; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The significant positive association of DFS and OS among patients with intermediate-high risk and high risk RCC post-nephrectomy from this study supports the use of DFS as a potential predictor of OS for these patients when OS data are immature.

Clinical and economic burdens of recurrence following nephrectomy for intermediate high- or high-risk renal cell carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data.

BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is associated with a high risk of recurrence. Although RCC has been shown to impose a substantial burden on patients, little is known about the incremental clinical and economic burden attributable to disease recurrence. With recent advances in the RCC-therapeutic landscape, including adjuvant therapies, it is important to quantify the clinical and economic burden associated with RCC recurrence to better evaluate the potential impact of treatment in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incremental clinical and economic burden associated with disease recurrence among patients with intermediate high-risk and high-risk RCC postnephrectomy. METHODS: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database (2007-2016) were used to identify patients with newly diagnosed, intermediate high-risk or high-risk RCC following nephrectomy. Patients with a diagnosis of metastatic disease or repeat nephrectomy or initiating a systemic treatment for advanced RCC were grouped as the recurrence cohort; patients without evidence of recurrence were grouped as the cohort without recurrence. Health care resource utilization (HRU), health care costs (2019 US dollars), and overall survival (OS) were compared between cohorts with and without recurrence, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients with recurrence and 374 patients without recurrence were analyzed. Mean age was 75.2 and 75.7 years (P = 0.383), respectively, and 64.7% and 57.8% (P = 0.076) of patients were male, respectively. Median follow-up duration was 17 and 28 months, respectively. Patients with recurrence had a significantly shorter OS relative to patients without recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio = 6.00; 95% CI = 4.24-8.48; P < 0.001). Additionally, compared with patients without recurrence, patients with recurrence had significantly more inpatient admissions (0.16 vs 0.04 admissions per person-month [PM]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 3.88; 95% CI = 3.12-4.81), outpatient visits (3.06 vs 1.77 visits per PM; aIRR = 1.68; 95% CI = 1.56-1.81), emergency department visits (0.10 vs 0.05 visits per PM; aIRR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.66-2.68), and days hospitalized (1.40 vs 0.35 days per PM; aIRR = 6.73; 95% CI = 4.95-9.15) per patient per month (all P < 0.001). Adjusted mean monthly health care costs per patient were significantly higher among patients with recurrence vs patients without recurrence (differences of all-cause total costs, total medical costs, and pharmacy cost per month: $6,320, $4,924, and $1,387; all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RCC recurrence is associated with a significant increase in mortality, HRU, and health care costs, highlighting the substantial unmet need in patients with intermediate high-risk and high-risk RCC postnephrectomy when adjuvant therapies are not widely available. DISCLOSURES: Dr Sundaram is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., and holds stock in AbbVie, Abbott, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck & Co., Inc. Dr Bhattacharya is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., and holds stock in Merck & Co., Inc. Dr Adejoro and Dr Rogerio were employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. at the time of study conduct. Dr Adejoro holds stock in Johnson & Johnson. Dr Song, Dr Zhang, Mr Carley, and Dr Signorovitch are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting firm that received funding from Merck & Co., Inc. for the conduct of this research. Ms Zhu was an employee of Analysis Group, Inc. at the time of study conduct. Dr Haas is a Professor of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania and also serves on the advisory board for Aveo, Calithera and Exelixis, Co. Financial support for this study was provided by Merck & Co., Inc. The study sponsor was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, interpretation of data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Eligibility and Radiologic Assessment for Adjuvant Clinical Trials in Kidney Cancer.

PURPOSE: To harmonize the eligibility criteria and radiologic disease assessment definitions in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHOD: On November 28, 2017, US-based experts in RCC clinical trials, including medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, regulators, biostatisticians, radiologists, and patient advocates, convened at a public workshop to discuss eligibility for trial entry and radiologic criteria for assessing disease recurrence in adjuvant trials in RCC. Multiple virtual meetings were conducted to address the issues identified at the workshop. RESULTS: The key workshop conclusions for adjuvant RCC therapy clinical trials were as follows. First, patients with non-clear cell RCC could be routinely included, preferably in an independent cohort. Second, patients with T3-4, N+M0, and microscopic R1 RCC tumors may gain the greatest advantages from adjuvant therapy. Third, trials of agents not excreted by the kidney should not exclude patients with severe renal insufficiency. Fourth, therapy can begin 4 to 16 weeks after the surgical procedure. Fifth, patients undergoing radical or partial nephrectomy should be equally eligible. Sixth, patients with microscopically positive soft tissue or vascular margins without gross residual or radiologic disease may be included in trials. Seventh, all suspicious regional lymph nodes should be fully resected. Eighth, computed tomography should be performed within 4 weeks before trial enrollment; for patients with renal insufficiency who cannot undergo computed tomography with contrast, noncontrast chest computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis with gadolinium should be performed. Ninth, when feasible, biopsy should be undertaken to identify any malignant disease. Tenth, when biopsy is not feasible, a uniform approach should be used to evaluate indeterminate radiologic findings to identify what constitutes no evidence of disease at trial entry and what constitutes radiologic evidence of disease. Eleventh, a uniform approach for establishing the date of recurrence should be included in any trial design. Twelfth, patient perspectives on the use of placebo, conditions for unblinding, and research biopsies should be considered carefully during the conduct of an adjuvant trial. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The discussions suggested that a uniform approach to eligibility criteria and radiologic disease assessment will lead to more consistently interpretable trial results in the adjuvant RCC therapy setting.

Longitudinal Assessment of Vascular Function With Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib, used widely in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, can result in hypertension, left ventricular dysfunction, and heart failure. However, the relationships between vascular function and cardiac dysfunction with sunitinib are poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter prospective study of 84 metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients, echocardiography, arterial tonometry, and BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) measures were performed at baseline and at 3.5, 15, and 33 weeks after sunitinib initiation, correlating with sunitinib cycles 1, 3, and 6. Mean change in vascular function parameters and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Linear regression models were used to estimate associations between vascular function and left ventricular ejection fraction, longitudinal strain, diastolic function (E/e'), and BNP. After 3.5 weeks of sunitinib, mean systolic blood pressure increased by 9.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 2.0-17.1; P=0.02) and diastolic blood pressure by 7.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 4.3-10.0; P<0.001) across all participants. Sunitinib resulted in increases in large artery stiffness (carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity) and resistive load (total peripheral resistance and arterial elastance; all P<0.05) and changes in pulsatile load (total arterial compliance and wave reflection). There were no statistically significant associations between vascular function and systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction and longitudinal strain). However, baseline total peripheral resistance, arterial elastance, and aortic impedance were associated with worsening diastolic function and filling pressures over time. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib resulted in early, significant increases in blood pressure, arterial stiffness, and resistive and pulsatile load within 3.5 weeks of treatment. Baseline vascular function parameters were associated with worsening diastolic but not systolic function.

Upfront androgen deprivation therapy with salvage radiation may improve biochemical outcomes in prostate cancer patients with post-prostatectomy rising PSA.

PURPOSE: The addition of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to definitive external beam radiation therapy (RT) improves outcomes in higher-risk prostate cancer patients. However, the benefit of ADT with salvage RT in post-prostatectomy patients is not clearly established. Our study compares biochemical outcomes in post-prostatectomy patients who received salvage RT with or without concurrent ADT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Of nearly 2,000 post-prostatectomy patients, we reviewed the medical records of 191 patients who received salvage RT at the University of Pennsylvania between 1987 and 2007. Follow-up data were obtained by chart review and electronic polling of the institutional laboratory database and Social Security Death Index. Biochemical failure after salvage RT was defined as a prostate-specific antigen of 2.0 ng/mL above the post-RT nadir or the initiation of ADT after completion of salvage RT. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients received salvage RT alone, and 62 patients received combined ADT and salvage RT. Median follow-up was 5.4 years. Patients who received combined ADT and salvage RT were younger, had higher pathologic Gleason scores, and higher rates of seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node involvement, and pelvic nodal irradiation compared with patients who received salvage RT alone. Patients who received combined therapy had improved biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) compared with patients who received RT alone (p = 0.048). For patients with pathologic Gleason scores ≤7, combined RT and ADT resulted in significantly improved bPFS compared to RT alone (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that initiating ADT during salvage RT in the post-prostatectomy setting may improve bPFS compared with salvage RT alone. However, prospective randomized data are necessary to definitively determine whether hormonal manipulation should be used with salvage RT. Furthermore, the optimal nature and duration of ADT and the patient subgroups in which ADT could provide the most benefit remain open questions.