Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer in the United States.

AIMS: Approximately, 4% of Stage IV colorectal cancers (CRC) are microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors. Patients with metastatic MSI-H/dMMR CRC receiving conventional therapies experience lower response rates and tend to have worse overall survival compared with patients with microsatellite stable (MSS)/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) CRC. Pembrolizumab received FDA approval in 2020 for first-line treatment of Stage IV MSI-H/dMMR CRC based on significantly longer progression-free survival versus standard of care (SoC, 5-fluorouracil-based therapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. SoC as per KEYNOTE-177 and other first-line treatments for MSI-H/dMMR CRC from a US healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A three-health-state partitioned-survival model was built using progression-free and overall survival data from KEYNOTE-177 and a network meta-analysis. Utilities were derived from KEYNOTE-177 EQ-5D-3L data. Drug acquisition, administration, AE, surgery, monitoring, subsequent treatment, and terminal care costs were included. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed, including utilizing a state-transition model structure and adopting a societal perspective. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, pembrolizumab and SoC were associated with total QALYs of 4.85 and 3.23, and total costs of $381,735 and $370,465, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $6,984 per QALY. QALY gains were mainly driven by extended survival with pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab incurred higher drug acquisition costs relative to SoC but was cost-saving in terms of drug administration, AE, monitoring, subsequent treatment, and terminal care. Pembrolizumab dominated FOLFOX + panitumumab, FOLFOXIRI, and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab, and presented ICERs of $35,220 and $276 against XELOX and XELOX + bevacizumab. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab is highly cost-effective for the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR CRC in the US at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.Key messagesPembrolizumab is a highly cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic MSI-H/dMMR colorectal cancer in the United States at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Compared with the current standard of care for these patients, pembrolizumab:Increases survival due to delaying and preventing progression;Increases QALYs due to longer survival, improvement in HRQoL in the progression-free health state, and fewer Grade 3+ adverse events;Reduces costs associated with administering treatment, managing adverse events, monitoring post-progression disease, providing subsequent treatment, and providing terminal care; andReduces indirect health care costs when taking a societal perspective due to productivity gains from delaying and preventing progression and death, less frequent treatment administration and less frequent Grade 3+ adverse events.

Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions for elderly individuals are often made primarily on the basis of age, whereas other factors that influence the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening are often not considered. We investigated the relative importance of factors that could be used to identify elderly individuals most likely to benefit from CRC screening and determined the maximum ages at which screening remains cost effective based on these factors. METHODS: We used a microsimulation model (Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon) calibrated to the incidence of CRC in the United States and the prevalence of adenomas reported in autopsy studies to determine the appropriate age at which to stop colonoscopy screening in 19,200 cohorts (of 10 million individuals), defined by sex, race, screening history, background risk for CRC, and comorbidity status. We applied a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Less intensive screening history, higher background risk for CRC, and fewer comorbidities were associated with cost-effective screening at older ages. Sex and race had only a small effect on the appropriate age to stop screening. For some individuals likely to be screened in current practice (for example, 74-year-old white women with moderate comorbidities, half the average background risk for CRC, and negative findings from a screening colonoscopy 10 years previously), screening resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain. For some individuals unlikely to be screened in current practice (for example, 81-year-old black men with no comorbidities, an average background risk for CRC, and no previous screening), screening was highly cost effective. Although screening some previously screened, low-risk individuals was not cost effective even when they were 66 years old, screening some healthy, high-risk individuals remained cost effective until they reached the age of 88 years old. CONCLUSIONS: The current approach to CRC screening in elderly individuals, in which decisions are often based primarily on age, is inefficient, resulting in underuse of screening for some and overuse of screening for others. CRC screening could be more effective and cost effective if individual factors for each patient are considered.

The value of models in informing resource allocation in colorectal cancer screening: the case of The Netherlands.

In May 2011, the Dutch government decided to implement a national programme for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using biennial faecal immunochemical test screening between ages 55 and 75. Decision modelling played an important role in informing this decision, as well as in the planning and implementation of the programme afterwards. In this overview, we illustrate the value of models in informing resource allocation in CRC screening using the role that decision modelling has played in the Dutch CRC screening programme as an example.

Optimal colorectal cancer screening in states' low-income, uninsured populations­the case of South Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, given a limited budget, a state's low-income uninsured population would have greater benefit from a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program using colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: South Carolina's low-income, uninsured population. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness analysis using microsimulation modeling to estimate the number of individuals screened, CRC cases prevented, CRC deaths prevented, and life-years gained from a screening program using colonoscopy versus a program using annual FIT in South Carolina's low-income, uninsured population. This analysis assumed an annual budget of $1 million and a budget availability of 2 years as a base case. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The annual FIT screening program resulted in nearly eight times more individuals being screened, and more important, approximately four times as many CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained than the colonoscopy screening program. Our results were robust for assumptions concerning economic perspective and the target population, and they may therefore be generalized to other states and populations. CONCLUSIONS: A FIT screening program will prevent more CRC deaths than a colonoscopy-based program when a state's budget for CRC screening supports screening of only a fraction of the target population.

The appropriateness of more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended in Medicare beneficiaries: a modeling study.

IMPORTANCE: Many Medicare beneficiaries undergo more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended. Whether this is favorable for beneficiaries and efficient from a societal perspective is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether more intensive colonoscopy screening than recommended is favorable for Medicare beneficiaries (ie, whether it results in a net health benefit) and whether it is efficient from a societal perspective (ie, whether the net health benefit justifies the additional resources required). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Microsimulation modeling study of 65-year-old Medicare beneficiaries at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) and with an average life expectancy who underwent a screening colonoscopy at 55 years with negative results. INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy screening as recommended by guidelines (ie, at 65 and 75 years) vs scenarios with a shorter screening interval (5 or 3 instead of 10 years) or in which screening was continued to 85 or 95 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained (measure of net health benefit); additional colonoscopies required per additional QALY gained and additional costs per additional QALY gained (measures of efficiency). RESULTS: Screening previously screened Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended resulted in only small increases in CRC deaths prevented and life-years gained. In comparison, the increases in colonoscopies performed and colonoscopy-related complications experienced were large. As a result, all scenarios of more intensive screening than recommended resulted in a loss of QALYs, rather than a gain (ie, a net harm). The only exception was shortening the screening interval from 10 to 5 years, which resulted in 0.7 QALYs gained per 1000 beneficiaries. However, this scenario was inefficient because it required no less than 909 additional colonoscopies and an additional $711 000 per additional QALY gained. Results in previously unscreened beneficiaries were slightly less unfavorable, but conclusions were identical. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening Medicare beneficiaries more intensively than recommended is not only inefficient from a societal perspective; often it is also unfavorable for those being screened. This study provides evidence and a clear rationale for clinicians and policy makers to actively discourage this practice.

Should colorectal cancer screening be considered in elderly persons without previous screening? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against routine screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in adequately screened persons older than 75 years but does not address the appropriateness of screening in elderly persons without previous screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine at what ages CRC screening should be considered in unscreened elderly persons and to determine which test is indicated at each age. DESIGN: Microsimulation modeling study. DATA SOURCES: Observational and experimental studies. TARGET POPULATION: Unscreened persons aged 76 to 90 years with no, moderate, and severe comorbid conditions. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: One-time colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years gained, costs, and costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In unscreened elderly persons with no comorbid conditions, CRC screening was cost-effective up to age 86 years. Screening with colonoscopy was indicated up to age 83 years, sigmoidoscopy was indicated at age 84 years, and FIT was indicated at ages 85 and 86 years. In unscreened persons with moderate comorbid conditions, screening was cost-effective up to age 83 years (colonoscopy indicated up to age 80 years, sigmoidoscopy at age 81 years, and FIT at ages 82 and 83 years). In unscreened persons with severe comorbid conditions, screening was cost-effective up to age 80 years (colonoscopy indicated up to age 77 years, sigmoidoscopy at age 78 years, and FIT at ages 79 and 80 years). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES: Results were most sensitive to assuming a lower willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year gained. LIMITATION: Only persons at average risk for CRC were considered. CONCLUSION: In unscreened elderly persons CRC screening should be considered well beyond age 75 years. A colonoscopy is indicated at most ages. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.