RESUMO
Introduction: The survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved dramatically due to novel systemic treatments. However, mRCC mortality continues to rise in Latin America. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter study of patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2010-2018 in Mexico City was conducted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of healthcare insurance on access to treatment and survival in patients with mRCC. Results: Among 924 patients, 55.4%, 42.6%, and 1.9% had no insurance (NI), social security, (SS) and private insurance (PI), respectively. De novo metastatic disease was more common in NI patients (70.9%) compared to SS (47.2%) and PI (55.6%) patients (p<0.001). According to IMDC Prognostic Index, 20.2% were classified as favorable, 49% as intermediate, and 30.8% as poor-risk disease. Access to systemic treatment differed by healthcare insurance: 36.1%, 99.5%, and 100% for the NI, SS, and PI patients, respectively (p<0.001). NI patients received fewer lines of treatment, with 24.8% receiving only one line of treatment (p<0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for NI, 98.9 months for SS, and 147.6 months for NI patients (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, NI status, brain metastases, sarcomatoid features, bone metastases, no treatment were significantly associated with worse OS. Conclusion: OS in mRCC was affected by insurance availability in this resource-limited cohort of Mexican patients. These results underscore the need for effective strategies to achieve equitable healthcare access in an era of effective, yet costly systemic treatments.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There now exist several viable first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, making the choice of initial therapy difficult. Considering metrics other than patient factors may be necessary to select the most appropriate therapy. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three combination therapies currently approved in treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma-nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), and avelumab + axitinib (AA)-from a US payer perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our analysis was performed based on previously obtained data derived from progression-free survival and overall survival curves from CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, and JAVELIN Renal 101. RESULTS: The total costs of each treatment were found to be $437,556.12 for NI, $450,597.15 for PA, and $542,882.34 for AA, with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 4.04, 3.77, and 2.95 for each combination, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NI versus PA was ($47,504.73/QALY); for NI versus AA, it was ($96,533.11/QALY); for PA versus AA, it was ($113,015.87/QALY). Net health benefit scaled against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was positive for NI versus PA at 0.36 and versus AA at 1.79, and this index was also positive for PA versus AA at 1.43, indicating that the additional value of these therapies versus their alternatives is greater than the extra cost. CONCLUSION: NI was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option compared with the other considered therapies. PA was found to be cost effective compared to AA. When patient factors such as social issues and pre-existing conditions do not dictate their first-line therapy, clinicians may use this additional information to make financially conscious choices.
