Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and etoposide-platinum in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (DEP) showed sustained overall survival improvements in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to etoposide-platinum (EP), but adding tremelimumab to DEP (DTEP) did not significantly improve outcomes. A third-party payer perspective is taken here to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DTEP, DEP, and EP for ES-SCLC. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness was evaluated by partitioning survival models into 3 mutually exclusive health states. In this model, clinical characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the CASPIAN. Model robustness was evaluated through 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Outcome measurements included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, life-years, incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. The analysis was conducted with a 10-year lifetime horizon in a United States setting. RESULTS: Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were associated with an increment of 0.480 and 0.313 life-years, and an increment of 0.247 and 0.165 QALYs, as well as a $139,788 and $170,331 increase in cost per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $565,807/QALY and $1033,456/QALY, respectively. The incremental net health benefit and incremental net monetary benefit of DEP or DTEP were -0.685 QALYs and -$102,729, or -0.971 QALYs and -$145,608 at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated. DTEP and DEP were 100% unlikely to be cost-effective if the willingness to pay threshold was $150,000/QALY. DEP was cost-effective compared to EP when durvalumab was priced below $0.994/mg. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were unlikely to be considered cost-effective across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: DEP and DTEP were not cost-effective options in the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC compared with EP, from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus the EXTREME regimen in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line serplulimab combined with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

Background: For patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), serplulimab plus chemotherapy is beneficial as the first-line treatment. It is uncertain whether serplulimab plus chemotherapy will be more cost-effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to assess the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with ES-SCLC. Materials and methods: This study employed a partitioned survival model. Patients in the model were selected from ASTRUM-005 for their clinical characteristics and outcomes. In order to assess the robustness of the model, we conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analyzes as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Subgroup analyzes were also conducted. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were analyzed. Results: Based on the base-case analysis, serplulimab plus chemotherapy contributed to an increase in 0.826 life-years and 0.436 QALYs; an incremental cost of $52,331, yielded ICER of $120,149/QALY. Based on the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY, the INHB was -0.954 QALYs and - 0.169 QALYs and the INMB was -$35,924 and -$14,626, respectively. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results, serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of serplulimab and body weight had the greatest impact on the model. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $86,569/QALY when the cost of serplulimab was less than $5.24/mg or when the weight of the patient was less than 40.96 kg. Regardless of the WTP threshold at $37,669/QALY or $86,569. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective in all subgroups. Conclusion: Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective, despite having a prior clinical benefical and a relative safety profile compared with chemotherapy. With the reduction in the price of serplulimab, ES-SCLC patients treated with serplulimab plus chemotherapy may be able to achieve a favorable cost-effectiveness rate.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan for previously treated HER2-low advanced breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical efficacy and safety profile of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) have been demonstrated in previously treated patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low advanced breast cancer (BC). It is, however, necessary to evaluate the value of T-DXd considering both its clinical efficacy and its cost, given that it is high. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd versus chemotherapy in patients with previously treated HER2-low advanced BC. METHODS: We used a partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states. The patients in the model were identified based on their clinical characteristics and outcomes from the DESTINY-Breast04. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model's robustness. Subgroup analyses were also conducted. The measures included costs, life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). RESULTS: The ICERs of T-DXd vs. chemotherapy were $83,892/QALY, $82,808/QALY, and $93,358/QALY in all HER2-low advanced BC patients, HER2-positive (HER2+) advanced BC patients and HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced BC patients, respectively. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of T-DXd and hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also identified as key drivers. If the price of T-DXd decreased to $17.00/mg, $17.13/mg, and $14.07/mg, it would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY in all HER2-low advanced BC patients, HER2+ advanced BC patients and HER2- advanced BC patients, respectively. At a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, the probability of T-DXd being cost-effective was 81.10%, 82.27%, and 73.78% compared to chemotherapy for all HER2-low advanced BC patients, HER2+ advanced BC patients and HER2- advanced BC patients, respectively. Most subgroups of patients with HER2+ disease had a cost-effectiveness probability of > 50%. CONCLUSION: From a third-party payer's perspective in the United States, the findings of the cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that, at the current price, T-DXd is a cost-effective alternative to chemotherapy for patients with prior HER2-low advanced BC, at WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Objectives: A cost-effectiveness study of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China was conducted versus chemotherapy alone. Methods: Survival data were derived from CameL-Sq. Cost-effectiveness is indicated by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness-to-pay threshold. The partitioned survival model stability was assessed by sensitivity analyses. Results: With camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.83, and cost increased by $21,259/patient versus chemotherapy. The ICER was $25,674/quality-adjusted life year. The probability of cost-effectiveness was >90% regardless of PD-L1 expression level. Regardless of the variation in each parameter across a wide range, the ICER never transcended the willingness to pay. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Camrelizumab is a drug, and this drug can be used for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Our study showed that patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with camrelizumab plus chemotherapy are related to an acceptable price and better clinical outcomes compared with chemotherapy in China. Benefit groups include patients under 65 years of age or over 65, male patients, patients who were current or former smokers and those with or without liver or brain metastases.

Cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Background: In patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), cemiplimab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) significantly compared to chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of these drugs is still uncertain. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC was evaluated using a partitioned survival model containing three mutually incompatible health states. The clinical characteristics and outcomes used in the model were gathered from EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial. We have conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis in order to evaluate the robustness of the model. The primary outcomes considered were the costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). Results: Treatment of aNSCLC with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy increased efficacy by 0.237 QALYs and was associated with an increased total cost of $50,796 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $214,256/QALY gained. At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the INHB of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 0.203 QALYs and the INMB was $304,704 compared to chemotherapy alone. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that there was only a 0.04% chance that cemiplimab with chemotherapy would be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The performance of model was mainly determined by the price of cemiplimab, according to a one-way sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: From the third-party payer perspective, cemiplimab combined chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of aNSCLC at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Background: The efficiency and safety of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) for the therapy of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (BC) has been demonstrated. The aim of this study is to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on HR+/HER2- metastatic BC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Methods: We performed the cost-effectiveness of SG and chemotherapy using a partitioned survival model. TROPiCS-02 provided clinical patients for this study. We evaluated the robustness of this study by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also conducted. The outcomes were costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Results: SG treatment was related to an increase of 0.284 life years and 0.217 QALYs over chemotherapy, as well as a cost increase of $132,689, reaching an ICER of $612,772/QALY. The INHB was -0.668 QALYs, and the INMB was -$100,208. SG was not cost-effective at the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The outcomes were sensitive to patient body weight and cost of SG. SG may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY if the price is less than $3.997/mg or the weight of patients is under 19.88 kg. Based on the subgroup analysis, SG did not prove cost-effective in all subgroups at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. Conclusion: From a third-party payer standpoint in the United States, SG was not cost-effective, even though it had a clinically significant advantage over chemotherapy for the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic BC. The cost-effectiveness of SG can be improved if the price is substantially reduced.

Sugemalimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Sugemalimab is a newly developed inhibitor of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). As a first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), sugemalimab plus chemotherapy (Sugema-Chemo) has been proven effective. Still, its cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Sugema-Chemo from a health care perspective in China. Methods: A partitioned survival model was used. According to the GEMSTONE-302 trial, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients were obtained. The outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). The robustness of the model was further evaluated, as well as subgroup analyses. When the ICER was lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold ($38,017/QALY or $86,376/QALY, defined as three times the per capita gross domestic product value of the general region and Beijing), the cost-effectiveness of Sugema-Chemo was assumed for general regions or Beijing. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, Sugema-Chemo resulted in an incremental gain of 0.82 QALYs, an incremental gain of 1.26 life-years, as well as an average increase cost of $72,472. The ICER was $88,744/QALY. Model outcomes were susceptible to average body weight and cost of sugemalimab. Sugema-Chemo was cost-effective at a WTP threshold of 86,376/QALY if the average body weight was <62.44 kg or if the price of sugemalimab was <$2.996/mg. As well, Sugema-Chemo was also cost-effective when the cost of sugemalimab was <$1.839/mg for a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. Sugema-Chemo had a probability of > 50% being considered cost-effective in most subgroups at the $86,376/QALY threshold. However, Sugema-Chemo did not achieve cost-effectiveness (0%) in any of the subgroups when WTP was set at $38,017/QALY. Conclusion: Sugema-Chemo might not be cost-effective in patients with metastatic NSCLC in China. In deciding between Sugema-Chemo and chemotherapy alone, it is essential to consider both the body weight of patients and the price of sugemalimab. A price reduction of sugemalimab under the National Healthcare Security Administration may be an effective measure to improve the cost-effectiveness of the drug.

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Background and objective: Tislelizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line option for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly prolonged survival outcomes; however, evidence regarding its relative efficacy and cost is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone, from the health care perspective in China. Methods: A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used for this study. The survival data were obtained from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Cost-effectiveness was defined as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Incremental net health benefits (INHB), incremental net monetary benefits (INMB), and subgroup analyses were also assessed. Sensitivity analyses were further established to assess the model stability. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 1.48 life-years, and yielded an increase of $16,631 in cost per patient. The INMB and INHB were $7,510 and 0.20 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, respectively. The ICER was $26,162/QALY. The outcomes were most sensitive to the HR of OS for tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm. The probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective was 87.66% and >50% in most of the subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $86,376/QALY, the probability achieved 99.81%. Furthermore, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective in subgroups of patients with liver metastases and PD-L1 expression ≥50% were 90.61 and 94.35%, respectively. Conclusion: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

Pembrolizumab vs cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression levels of at least 50%: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Pembrolizumab and cemiplimab have been approved as treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression from a societal perspective in the United States. Materials and methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis integration of the network meta-analysis framework was performed using data from the EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE 024, and KEYNOTE 042 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A network meta-analysis including 2289 patients was constructed, and the Markov and partitioned survival (PS) models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab for the treatment of high PD-L1 expression (≥50% of tumor cells). The time horizon was 10 years. The main outcomes were overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). The robustness of the model was verified using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted. Results: Treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression with pembrolizumab achieved 0.093 QALYs and was associated with an incremental cost of $10,657 compared with cemiplimab, yielding an ICER of $114,246/QALY. The ICER in the PS model was similar to that in the Markov model, with a difference of $3,093/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY, INHB, and INMB of pembrolizumab were -0.013 QALYs and -$1,329, respectively, and the probability of cemiplimab was 51% when compared with pembrolizumab. When the WTP threshold increased to $150,000/QALY, the INHB and INMB of pembrolizumab were 0.022 QALYs and $3,335, respectively, and the probability of pembrolizumab was 51.85%. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the models were sensitive to pembrolizumab and cemiplimab costs. Subgroup analysis revealed that treatment with pembrolizumab was related to a higher INHB in several subgroups, including patients with brain metastases at baseline. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the WTP threshold should be considered when choosing between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab to treat advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Reducing the cost of pembrolizumab may lead to valuable outcomes.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus nivolumab as first-line treatment for advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo-beva) versus nivolumab treatment for advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is still uncertain. In this study, the cost effectiveness of these treatments was assessed in the United States. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis integrating a network meta-analysis framework was performed using data from the IMbrave150 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03434379) and CheckMate 459 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02576509) trials. In total, 1244 patients were enrolled. A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate cost effectiveness. A deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were further performed to evaluate model robustness. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Compared with the outcomes using nivolumab, the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival with atezo-beva was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.98), and the HR for progression-free survival was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.47-0.85). Atezo-beva treatment was associated with an increase of 1.13 life-years and an increase of 0.69 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as well as a $78,280 increase in cost per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $113,892 per QALY. The incremental net health benefit and the incremental net monetary benefit were 0.17 QALYs and $24,770, respectively, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the HR for progression-free survival. The probability of atezo-beva being considered cost effective was 78%, and it was >50% in most of the subgroups at the WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY and under current drug pricing, atezo-beva is likely considered cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma compared with nivolumab.

Nivolumab Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were -0.15 QALYs and -$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.