Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Risk Factor-Based Lung Cancer Screening Program by Low-Dose Computer Tomography in Current Smokers in China.

Although the effectiveness of lung cancer screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could be shown in China, there could be variation in the evidence concerning the economic impact. Our study explores the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and optimizes the best definition of a high-risk population. A Markov model consisting of the natural history and post-diagnosis states was constructed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of LDCT screening compared with no screening. A total of 36 distinct risk factor-based screening strategies were assessed by incorporating starting ages of 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 years, stopping ages of 69, 74 and 79 years as well as smoking eligibility criteria. Screening data came from community-based mass screening with LDCT for lung cancer in Guangzhou. Compared with no screening, all screening scenarios led to incremental costs and QALYs. When the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was USD37,653, three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China, six of nine strategies on the efficiency frontier may be cost-effective. Annual screening between 55 and 79 years of age for those who smoked more than 20 pack-years, which yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD35,000.00 per QALY gained, was considered optimal. In sensitivity analyses, the result was stable in most cases. The trends of the results are roughly the same in scenario analyses. According to the WTP threshold of different regions, the optimal screening strategies were annual screening for those who smoked more than 20 pack-years, between 50 and 79 years of age in Zhejiang province, 55-79 years in Guangdong province and 65-74 years in Yunnan province. However, annual screening was unlikely to be cost-effective in Heilongjiang province under our modelling assumptions, indicating that tailored screening policies should be made regionally according to the local epidemiological and economic situation.

Accurate classification of pulmonary nodules by a combined model of clinical, imaging, and cell-free DNA methylation biomarkers: a model development and external validation study.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet clinical need for accurate non-invasive tests to facilitate the early diagnosis of lung cancer. We propose a combined model of clinical, imaging, and cell-free DNA methylation biomarkers that aims to improve the classification of pulmonary nodules. METHODS: We conducted a prospective specimen collection and retrospective masked evaluation study. We recruited participants with a solitary pulmonary nodule sized 5-30 mm from 24 hospitals across 20 cities in China. Participants who were aged 18 years or older and had been referred with 5-30 mm non-calcified and solitary pulmonary nodules, including solid nodules, part solid nodules, and pure ground-glass nodules, were included. We developed a combined clinical and imaging biomarkers (CIBM) model by machine learning for the classification of malignant and benign pulmonary nodules in a cohort (n=839) and validated it in two cohorts (n=258 in the first cohort and n=283 in the second cohort). We then integrated the CIBM model with our previously established circulating tumour DNA methylation model (PulmoSeek) to create a new combined model, PulmoSeek Plus (n=258), and verified it in an independent cohort (n=283). The clinical utility of the models was evaluated using decision curve analysis. A low cutoff (0·65) for high sensitivity and a high cutoff (0·89) for high specificity were applied simultaneously to stratify pulmonary nodules into low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk groups. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of the CIBM, PulmoSeek, and PulmoSeek Plus models. Participants in this study were drawn from two prospective clinical studies that were registered (NCT03181490 and NCT03651986), the first of which was completed, and the second of which is ongoing because 25% of participants have not yet finished the required 3-year follow-up. FINDINGS: We recruited a total of 1380 participants. 1097 participants were enrolled from July 7, 2017, to Feb 12, 2019; 839 participants were used for the CIBM model training set, and the rest (n=258) for the first CIBM validation set and the PulmoSeek Plus training set. 283 participants were enrolled from Oct 26, 2018, to March 20, 2020, as an independent validation set for the PulmoSeek Plus model and the second validation set for the CIBM model. The CIBM model validation cohorts had area under the curves (AUCs) of 0·85 (95% CI 0·80-0·89) and 0·85 (0·81-0·89). The PulmoSeek Plus model had better discrimination capacity compared with the CIBM and PulmoSeek models with an increase of 0·05 in AUC (PulmoSeek Plus vs CIBM, 95% CI 0·022-0·087, p=0·001; and PulmoSeek Plus vs PulmoSeek, 0·018-0·083, p=0·002). The overall sensitivity of the PulmoSeek Plus model was 0·98 (0·97-0·99) at a fixed specificity of 0·50 for ruling out lung cancer. A high sensitivity of 0·98 (0·96-0·99) was maintained in early-stage lung cancer (stages 0 and I) and 0·99 (0·96-1·00) in 5-10 mm nodules. The decision curve showed that if an invasive intervention, such as surgical resection or biopsy, was deemed necessary at more than the risk threshold score of 0·54, the PulmoSeek Plus model would provide a standardised net benefit of 82·38% (76·06-86·79%), equivalent to correctly identifying approximately 83 of 100 people with lung cancer. Using the PulmoSeek Plus model to classify pulmonary nodules with two cutoffs (0·65 and 0·89) would have reduced 89% (105/118) of unnecessary surgeries and 73% (308/423) of delayed treatments. INTERPRETATION: The PulmoSeek Plus Model combining clinical, imaging, and cell-free DNA methylation biomarkers aids the early diagnosis of pulmonary nodules, with potential application in clinical decision making for the management of pulmonary nodules. FUNDING: The China National Science Foundation, the Key Project of Guangzhou Scientific Research Project, the High-Level University Construction Project of Guangzhou Medical University, the National Key Research & Development Programme, the Guangdong High Level Hospital Construction "Reaching Peak" Plan, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, The Leading Projects of Guangzhou Municipal Health Sciences Foundation, the Key Research and Development Plan of Shaanxi Province of China, the Scheme of Guangzhou Economic and Technological Development District for Leading Talents in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the Scheme of Guangzhou for Leading Talents in Innovation and Entrepreneurship, the Scheme of Guangzhou for Leading Team in Innovation, the Guangzhou Development Zone International Science and Technology Cooperation Project, and the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from a US-payer perspective. Materials & methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of NI versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of NSCLC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Results: NI provided an additional 0.715 QALYs compared with chemotherapy in all population. The corresponding ICER of NI was $180,307 per QALY gained. However, the ICER decreased to $143,434 per QALY in the programmed death ligand 1 expression level <1% population. Conclusion: From a US-payer perspective, NI is estimated to be cost-effective in the first-line setting for advanced NSCLC patients with programmed death ligand 1 expression level <1%.

Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour.

OBJECTIVE: Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments. DESIGN: Literature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Eligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments. RESULTS: Of 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29). CONCLUSIONS: No systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.

Evaluation bias in objective response rate and disease control rate between blinded independent central review and local assessment: a study-level pooled analysis of phase III randomized control trials in the past seven years.

BACKGROUND: In previous studies, complete-case implementation of blind independent central review has been considered unnecessary based on no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments. In order to further evaluate its value, this study investigated evaluation status between both assessments in phase III trials of anti-cancer drugs for non-hematologic solid tumors. METHODS: Eligible trials were searched in PubMed with the date of Jan 1, 2010 to Jun 30, 2017. We compared objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) between central and local assessments by study-level pooled analysis and correlation analysis. In pooled analysis, direct comparison was measured by the odds ratio (OR) of central-assessed response status to local-assessed response status; to investigate evaluation bias between central and local assessments, the above calculated OR between experimental (exp-) and control (con-) arms were compared, measured by the ratio of OR. RESULTS: A total of 28 included trials involving 17,466 patients were included (28 with ORR, 16 with DCR). Pooled analysis showed central assessment reported lower ORR and DCR than local assessment, especially in trials with open-label design, central-assessed primary endpoint, and positive primary endpoint outcome, respectively. However, this finding could be found in both experimental [exp-ORR: OR=0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.87), P<0.01, I2=11%; exp-DCR: OR=0.90 (0.81-1.01), P=0.07, I2=42%] and control arms [con-ORR: OR=0.79 (0.72-0.85), P<0.01, I2=17%; con-DCR: OR=0.94 (0.86-1.02), P=0.14, I2=12%]. No sign of evaluation bias between two assessments was indicated through further analysis [ORR: ratio of OR=1.02 (0.97-1.07), P=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: ratio of OR=0.98 (0.93-1.03), P=0.37, I2=0%], regardless of mask (open/blind), sample size, tumor type, primary endpoint (central-assessed/local-assessed), and primary endpoint outcome (positive/negative). Correlation analysis demonstrated a high-degree concordance between central and local assessments (exp-ORR, con-ORR, exp-DCR, con-DCR: r>0.90, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Blind independent central review remained irreplaceable to monitor local assessment, but its complete-case implementation may be unnecessary.

Network meta-analysis of erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: Several EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments. RESULTS: Twelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, P<0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; P<0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib. CONCLUSIONS: The current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.