Mirvetuximab soravtansine in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer with high folate receptor-alpha expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients. METHODS: Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOT-ov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSION: At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Combination tumor-treating fields treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-treating field (TTFields) was a novel antitumor therapy that provided significant survival for previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The consistency of the cost of the new treatment regimen with its efficacy was the main objective of the study. METHODS: The primary parameters, derived from the Phase 3 LUNAR study, were collected to evaluate the cost and efficacy of TTFields plus standard-of-care (SOC) (immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs] and docetaxel [DTX]) or SOC in patients with mNSCLC by establishing a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Primary outcome measures for this study included costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The total costs of TTFields plus SOC, TTFields plus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX were $319,358, $338,688, and $298,477, generating 1.23 QALYs, 1.58 QALYs, and 0.89 QALYs, respectively. The ICERs of TTFields plus SOC versus SOC, TTFields plus ICI versus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX versus DTX were $613,379/QALY, $387,542/QALY, and $1,359,559/QALY, respectively. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY, the probability of combination TTFields being cost-effective was 0%. In addition, TTFields plus SOC exhibited similar efficacy (1.12 QALYs and 1.14 QALYs) and costs ($309,822 and $312,531) in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) populations. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, TTFields plus SOC as second-line treatment was not a more cost-effective strategy for patients with mNSCLC. Of the analyzed regimens, TTFields plus ICI was associated with most significant health benefits.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab as a first-line maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer by molecular status: an updated PAOLA-1 based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. METHODS: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model's stability. RESULTS: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Nivolumab plus chemotherapy (NC) was recently approved as the first-line intervention for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). Moreover, in the latest KEYNOTE-859 (NCT03675737), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC) was demonstrated to produce remarkable patient survival outcomes. Objectives: The clinicians and patients need to assess NC and PC preference for cancer drugs. Design: The cost-effective analysis. Methods: In an economic assessment of the United States, United Kingdom, and Chinese healthcare systems using a Markov model simulated patients with GC/GEJC, two treatment decision branches with three health states and a tracked time horizon of 15 years were developed. The overall cost and efficacy outcomes of first-line strategies PC and NC were evaluated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of different national, including life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were considered. Results: Given a WTP threshold of $150,000, $60,161, and $37,653 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively, both PC and NC achieved QALYs of 1.67 and 1.65 (2.51 and 2.48 LYs), 1.65 and 1.63 (2.48 and 2.45 LYs), and 1.60 and 1.58 (2.40 and 2.37 LYs), with total costs of $242,444 and $232,617, $148,367 and $127,737, and $16,693 and $24,016, respectively. Based on our sensitivity analysis, the programmed death-1 inhibitors cost produced the largest impact on the outcome. In addition, the cost-effectiveness probabilities of PC were 38.3%, 4.1%, and 100% in the three aforementioned countries, respectively. Conclusion: In the case of the Chinese payers' perspective, PC appeared more dominant as first-line therapy for advanced GC/GEJC patients, whereas NC was preferred in the United States and United Kingdom.

The cost-effectiveness analysis of maintenance olaparib plus Bevacizumab in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: based on the final survival results from PAOLA-1 trial.

INTRODUCTION: In 2023, the final PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) survival data were published documenting the benefits of therapy consisting of olaparib plus bevacizumab for patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) as a function of molecular status. In light of these new data, the present study was conducted with the goal of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for the treatment of the overall AOC patient population and for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations, homologous recombination proficiency (HRD)-positive, or patients not harboring BRCA mutations AOC from a US payers perspective. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model with a 15-year time horizon was used to evaluate outcomes of patients administered Olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were evaluated in this study in light of a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The stability of the established model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Relative to bevacizumab alone, Olaparib plus bevacizumab was associated with mean incremental costs and QALYs (LYs) of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab were $293,656 and 1.85 (2.16), $265,668 and 3.34 (4.02), $242,746 and 1.71 (2.06), and $193,792 and 0.97 (1.14) for overall, BRCA mutation-positive, HRD-positive, and HRD-positive BRCA mutation-negative AOC patients, respectively. The corresponding ICER values for these patient subgroups were $158,729 ($136,218), $79,434 ($66,120), $141,636 ($117,747), and $200,595 ($169,733) per QALY (LY) gained Utility value and the price of olaparib were identified in sensitivity analyses as the primary factors influencing these results. CONCLUSION: At current pricing levels, maintenance treatment with olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment may represent a cost-effective therapeutic option for BRCA mutations and HRD-positive AOC patients in the USA.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The increasingly widespread of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the field of antitumors has brought a new dawn for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). However, the choice of treatment needs to be supported by economic evaluation. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness comparison of first-line durvalumab or pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) treatment of aBTC was explored from the perspective of American and Chinese healthcare systems. METHODS: Ground on the TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 trials, the Markov model with a 15-year horizon including three health states to imitate cost and effective outcomes was established. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100 000/QALY and $37 408/ALY in the USA and China was used as the most important indicator. Other endpoint indexes included total cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). To verify the robustness, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Durvalumab plus GemCis ($322 211 [2.94 QALYs] and $35 695 [2.76 QALYs]) increased cost (effectiveness) by $63 777 (.22 QALYs) and $5234 (.20 QALYs) than pembrolizumab plus GemCis ($258 434 [2.72 QALYs] and $30 461 [2.56 QALYs]) in the USA and China, respectively. The corresponding ICER was $288 725/QALY and $26 401/QALY, with INHB of -.42 and .06 QALYs, respectively. The cost of ICIs was the most important factor influencing results. CONCLUSIONS: In China, first-line durvalumab plus GemCis versus pembrolizumab plus GemCis was a cost-effective option for patients with aBTC, but not in the USA.

First-line Immuno-chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Introduction: Many randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients. Methods: Multiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA. Results: We identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively. Conclusion: The NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.

Cemiplimab as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A United States-based Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of cemiplimab in recurrent cervical cancer has been demonstrated in the clinical trial EMPOWER-Cervical 1. However, its high price makes patients and clinicians hesitate to use it. Therefore, we designed a study to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We developed a Markov model based on phase III clinical trials to calculate the cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 20 years with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The economic data included were obtained from official US government websites and published literature. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine the uncertainties associated with the model, and a subgroup analysis was performed. RESULTS: Compared with chemotherapy, cemiplimab produced an additional 0.597 QALYs (0.751 LYs), resulting in an ICER of $111,211.471/QALY in the United States. The cost of cemiplimab is the most influential factor in the model. The results of these models were robust in all sensitivity analyses. From the American public payers' perspective, subgroup analysis showed cemiplimab was a cost-effective regimen in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 1%. CONCLUSION: From the American public payers' perspective, cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment option for second-line treatment of recurrent cervical cancer. Meanwhile, cemiplimab was a cost-effective treatment for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 and all histological types.

First-Line Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The CLEAR trial indicated that survival benefits were generated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) or everolimus (LE) than with sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). However, the high cost of immuno-target and dual-targeted treatment, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus in the first-line setting for treatment of patients with aRCC from the United States (US) payers' perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of LP or LE in first-line therapy for aRCC. We estimated life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Then, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Additional subgroup analyses were considered. RESULTS: Treatment with LP and LE provided an additional 0.67 QALYs (0.62 LYs) and 0.66 QALYs (0.90 LYs) compared with sunitinib, resulting in ICER of $131,656 per QALY and 201,928 per QALY, respectively. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of pembrolizumab with LP. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed there was a 58.97% and 28.91% probability that LP and LE were cost-effective at WTP values of $150,000 per QALY in the US. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that LP was more cost-effective for patients from Western Europe and North America, intermediate risk of the International risk group of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC), favorable and intermediate risk group of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and PD-L1 combined positive score greater than or equal to 1%. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the US payer, LP is a cost-effective option as first-line treatment for patients with aRCC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but LE is the opposite.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus chemotherapy for patients with HER2-low advanced breast cancer: A US-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: In recent years, the rise of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) has changed the treatment paradigm for patients with HER2-low advanced breast cancer (ABC). DESTINY-Breast04 (NCT03734029) has demonstrated the antitumor activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd). However, the balance between the efficacy and cost of T-DXd remains undefined. Consequently, there is a great need to assess the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd for patients with HER2-low ABC when compared with chemotherapy. Methods: A Markov decision-analytic model with a time horizon of 15 years was employed to estimate the costs and clinical efficacy of trials with the administration of T-DXd in contrast to chemotherapy alone as a later-line therapy in a group of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) or negative (HR-) HER2-low ABC. The US payer perspective was taken into account when factors such as medical lifetime expenditure, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the model's stability. A subgroup analysis was also conducted on the HR+/HER2-low cohort. Results: T-DXd was associated with an improvement of 0.543, 0.558, and 0.789 QALYs when compared with treatment with chemotherapy for overall, HR+, and HR- HER2-low patients, respectively. However, incorporating T-DXd into later-line therapy led to increased costs ($161,406, $177,907, and $155,757), which causes the ICER for T-DXd to be $296,873, $318,944, and $197,355 per QALY. The cost of T-DXd and the patient's weight were the most influential factors for ICER. T-DXd being the dominant strategy is about 1.5%, 0.5%, and 28.0% in overall, HR+, and HR- HER2-low ABC patients, respectively. In addition, the T-DXd regimen was not cost-effective in all subgroups. Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy, T-DXd was not cost-effective for patients with HER2-low ABC in the United States. However, it can provide more health benefits to patients with HR+/HER2-low ABC.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: DESTINY-Breast03 (NCT03529110) was the first global phase III study to assess the antitumor activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared to trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in 2022. However, the balance between efficacy and cost of T-DXd remains unclear. As a result, the present study's goal is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd vs T-DM1 as a second-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive MBC from the US and Chinese payer's perspectives. METHODS: A Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the overall cost of patient treatment, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) in the US and China at WTP levels of 150,000/QALY and 37,653/QALY, respectively (3 times GDP per capita in 2021). Key data were gathered from the US government's official website, the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, and published literature. To determine the model's stability, a sensitivity analysis was performed. A subgroup analysis was also implemented. RESULTS: Compared with T-DM1, treatment with T-DXd generated an additional 1.672 QALYs (2.796 LYs), resulting in an ICER of $13,342/QALY (US) and $186,017/QALY (China). The cost of drugs is the most influential factor in the American and Chinese models. Subgroup analysis revealed that the T-DXd and T-DM1 regimens were more cost-effective at reducing the risk of death in the US and Chinese HER2-positive MBC patients. CONCLUSION: T-DXd as second-line treatment could gain more health benefits for HER2-positive MBC patients in comparison with T-DM1, which is considered to be cost-effective in the US but not in China.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Chinese Patients With Advanced Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Introduction: Two targeted drugs (apatinib and lenvatinib) show clinical efficacy in first-line treatment of Chinese patients with radioactive advanced iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC) and are recommended by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Considering the high clinical cost of long-term vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor administration and to determine which of the two targeted drugs is preferable, we opted to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and network meta-analysis (NMA). Material and Methods: The results of NMA and CEA included in the two phase III randomized clinical trials REALITY (NCT03048877) and Study-308 (NCT02966093), in which Bayesian NMA and CEA were performed on 243 and 149 Chinese patients, respectively, were retrieved. Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) for apatinib versus lenvatinib were determined by NMA. CEA involved the development of a 20-year Markov model to obtain the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and this was followed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Results: Compared with lenvatinib, apatinib therapy provided a 0.837 improvement in QALY and $6,975 reduction in costs. The hazard ratio of apatinib versus lenvatinib and the cost of the targeted drugs had a significant impact on the model. According to the sensitivity analysis, apatinib was more cost-effective and had no correlation with willingness-to-pay in China. Subgroup analysis showed that apatinib maintained PFS more economically. Conclusion: NMA and CEA demonstrated that apatinib was more cost-effective compared to lenvatinib in the first-line treatment of Chinese RAIR-DTC patients.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for patients with mismatch repair-proficient advanced endometrial cancer: A United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In 2022, the KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) study showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PL) has more benefits than traditional chemotherapy as a first-line regimen to treat patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). However, given the high cost of immuno-targeted therapy, the widespread use among patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness comparison between PL and chemotherapy. METHODS: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PL versus chemotherapy over 7 years by developing a comprehensive Markov model, included 697 patients, that calculated total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The robustness of the model was evaluated by one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In addition, we also performed subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Chemotherapy yielded a mean survival of 0.705 QALYs (0.901 LYs) per patient and was associated with a mean cost of $163,777. PL was associated with an incremental cost of $38,582 and an additional 0.349 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $110,401 per QALY as compared to chemotherapy. The cost of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. At the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, approximately 79.2% of simulations show cost-effectiveness occurs in PL. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that PL was the most cost-effective regimen for patients who had previously received 1-line of therapy. CONCLUSION: For patients with pMMR aEC, the PL strategy may be the most cost-effective strategy at a WTP of $150,000 from the economic perspective of the United States.

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Introduction: In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics in the treatment of R/M NPC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness assessment of the two newly approved treatment strategies to assess which treatments provide the greatest clinical benefits at a reasonable cost. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis and network meta-analysis network meta-analysis was conducted based on the JUPITER-02 and CAPTAIN-first Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A Markov model was expanded for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of TGP, CGP, and GP chemotherapy with a 10-years horizon and measured the health achievements in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and life-years (LYs). We constructed a treatment strategy and other parameters based on two clinical trials and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity experiments for the evaluation of the uncertainty in the model. Results: For the model of patients with treatment-R/M NPC, TGP was associated with a total cost of $48,525 and 2.778 QALYs (4.991 LYs), leading to an ICER of $15,103 per QALY ($10,321 per LY) compared to CGP. On comparing the GP chemotherapy, we found TGP and CGP incurred substantial health costs, resulting in ICERs of $19,726 per QALY and $20,438 per QALY, respectively. The risk of adverse events (AEs) and the price of the drugs had significant impacts on the ICER. At the assumed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,673 per QALY, there were approximately 75.8 and 68.5% simulations in which cost-effectiveness was achieved for TGP and CGP, respectively. Conclusion: From the Chinese payer's perspective, TGP is more possible to be a cost-effective regimen compared with CGP and GP for first-line treatment of patients with R/M NPC at a WTP threshold of $35,673 per QALY.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, KEYNOTE-590 (NCT03189719) showed that pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PPF) has more benefits than 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PF) as a first-line regimen to treat individuals with advanced esophageal cancer. However, given that it is expensive, controversies over the value of using this compared to competitive strategies remain. Hence, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. METHODS: A Markov model was applied in evaluating the efficacy and cost of PPF and PF over a 7-year horizon and measured the health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The economic data included were relevant to patients in the USA and China. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to determine the uncertainties relevant to the model. Willingness to pay thresholds (WTP) of $150,000/QALY (USA) and $35,673/QALY (China) were used to calculate a probability for the cost-effectiveness of PPF. RESULTS: PPF yielded 0.386-0.607 QALYs (0.781-1.195 LYs) compared with PF. In our analysis, compared with receiving PF, patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving PPF had an ICER of $577,461/QALY in the USA and $258,261/QALY in China, those for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were $550,211/QALY in the USA and $244,580/QALY in China, and a programmed cell death ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥ 10 was associated with a cost of $479,119/QALY in the USA and $201,355/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis found the price of pembrolizumab to be the biggest influence. CONCLUSION: From the economic perspectives of the USA and China, a first-line regimen of PPF for esophageal cancer therapy may not be as cost-effective as PF. However, patients with esophageal cancer and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 may gain the most LYs from initial PPF treatment.

Immunotherapy or targeted therapy as the first-line strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Introduction: The existence of many phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) puzzle doctors and patients in choosing the most effective treatment strategies. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy or targeted therapy as the first-line strategy for unresectable HCC. Methods: The included clinical trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases, in which immunotherapy or targeted therapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for unresectable HCC, published in English between January 1, 2010, and September 20, 2022. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the Chinese payer's perspective. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the ranks of different treatments using P-score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated by NMA. Total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated from 15-year Markov models developed by CEA. Results: We identified 2,825 records, including 11,796 patients, from 15 RCTs. The NMA revealed that sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.75; P = 0.96) and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P = 0.94) could lead to great improvements in OS and PFS compared with sorafenib-related survival. The CEA indicated that tislelizumab increased by 0.220 QALYs (0.312 LYs) and decreased by $1,938 compared with sorafenib, which yielded ICERs of -$8,809/QALY (-$2,612/LY). Sensitivity analysis showed that the model was stable. Conclusion: Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib significantly prolonged OS and PFS, respectively. Further considering the pharmacoeconomics factors, tislelizumab is the most cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for unresectable HCC in China.

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Introduction: The ASTRUM-005 trial (NCT04063163) revealed that combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy (etoposide and carboplatin [EC]) treatment was associated with survival advantages relative to chemotherapy alone in patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). As these immuno-chemotherapeutic regimens are extremely expensive, however, it is critical that the relative cost-effectiveness of combination serplulimab and chemotherapy treatment as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC patients be examined in detail. Methods: The cost-effectiveness of combined serplulimab plus chemotherapeutic treatment was examined using a comprehensive Markov model with a 10-year boundary, enabling the calculation of overall cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model instability was interrogated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Serplulimab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone respectively yielded 1.217 QALYs (2.243 LYs) and 0.885 QALYs (1.661 LYs) with corresponding total costs of $11,202 and $7,194, with an ICER of $12,077 per QALY ($6,883 per LY). This model was most strongly influenced by the utility of progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy had a 91.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $37,653 per QALY (3 × capita gross domestic product of China in 2021). In subgroup analyses, this combination treatment regimen was found to be most cost-effective in patients who were former smokers, had an ECOG performance status of 0, and were diagnosed with brain metastases. Conclusion: From a payer perspective in China, combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy treatment represents a cost-effective first-line intervention for ES-SCLC patients.

First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical trial of Keynote-604 showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to assess the efficacy and cost of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers' perspective. METHODS: A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide(EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years(LYs), quality adjusted LYs(QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs(0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The price of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that pembrolizumab combined chemotherapy may become a cost-effective option with a probability of 0%. Besides, subgroup analysis suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option for first-line treatment patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Recently the phase 3 BEACON trial showed that the combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib versus cetuximab and irinotecan/FOLFIRI improved overall survival in pre-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with BRAF V600E mutation. However, whether the benefits of these therapies justify their high costs has not been estimated in the USA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BEC (binimetinib, encorafenib, and cetuximab), EC (encorafenib and cetuximab), and CI/CF (cetuximab with irinotecan or FOLFIRI) in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC after first- and second-line therapy. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to determine the costs and effects of BEC, EC, and CI/CF on the basis of BEACON trial outcomes data. Health outcomes were measured in life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses characterized parameters influencing cost-effectiveness. Subgroup analyses were conducted as well. RESULTS: The QALYs gained in BEC, EC, and CI/CF were 0.62, 0.54, and 0.40, respectively. BEC resulted in ICERs of $883,895.73/QALY and $1,646,846.14/QALY versus CI/CF and EC, respectively. Compared with CI/CF, the ICER was $435,449.88/QALY in EC. The most sensitive parameters in the comparison among the three arms were the utilities of progressive disease and progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of BEC and EC being cost-effective was 0%. In subgroup analyses, the ICER remained above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: BEC and EC were not cost-effective regimens for patients with pre-treated mCRC with BRAF V600E mutation.