Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for treatment of US patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the United States (US) healthcare payers perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model over a 30-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus placebo based on clinical data from the KEYNOTE-826 phase 3 randomized trial. Costs and health state utilities were obtained from literature and publicly available databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: For the Intention-to-Treat patients, pembrolizumab was associated with an additional 0.74 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of $182,271 when compared with placebo. The ICER was $247,663/QALY. For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥ 1 and 10, the ICER was $253,322/QALY and $214,212/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that pembrolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of pembrolizumab being cost-effective was zero at the current willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. The price of pembrolizumab had to reduce at least to $28.336 (55.8% of the current price) for it to be cost-effective in a 50% of chance. CONCLUSION: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is costly and might not be cost-effective for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer at the current price in the US.

Assessment of cytology based molecular analysis to guide targeted therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

To investigate the use of molecular testing on cytological specimens in selecting advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are adequate for targeted treatment, a total of 137 NSCLC cases were analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements, and Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations were evaluated by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) platform combining amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) primers and TaqMan probes. Cytological specimens included 91 fine-needle aspirates, 5 fibreoptic bronchoscopic derived samples and 41 pleural effusions. Among 137 NSCLCs analyzed for ALK FISH, 16 (11.7%, of 137) were detected to harbor ALK rearrangement. FISH positive cases were all defined as adenocarcinoma (ADC) histologic subtype and the FNA samples showed the highest ALK positive rate (13.2%, 12/91). Of the 9 ALK FISH positive patients who received crizotinib treatment, 8 (88.9%) patients exhibited tumor regression. In addition, 60 (44.8%, of 134) cases were found to harbor EGFR mutations and 22 patients with EGFR sensitive mutations who received gefitinib or erlotinib treatment showed a median PFS of 16.0 months. Mutations of KRAS occurred in 8 (6.0%, of 134) cases and this was mutually exclusive from EGFR mutation. Our results demonstrated that ALK FISH and EGFR, KRAS mutational analysis on cytological specimens are sensitive methods for screening advanced stage NSCLC patients who are adequate for targeted treatment.

Pathologic response and toxicity assessment of chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in cervical cancer: a randomized Phase II study.

PURPOSE: To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with cisplatin (C) concurrent with radiotherapy in International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Stage IB2, IIA, and IIB cervical carcinoma in a preoperative setting. The main endpoints were the pathologic response rate and toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 83 patients were randomized to either C or GC. Treatment consisted of six doses of cisplatin at 40 mg/m(2) every week for Arm 1 (C) and six doses of gemcitabine at 125 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin at 40 mg/m(2) every week for or Arm 2 (GC) Both regimens were administered concurrent with 50 Gy of external beam radiotherapy in 2-Gy fractions for 5 weeks. After chemoradiotherapy, patients underwent radical hysterectomy. RESULTS: All 83 patients were studied for toxicity and 80 for response. The complete pathologic response rate in the C arm and GC arm was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35.5-73%) and 77.5% (95% confidence interval, 57-90%; p = 0.0201). Among those with a partial response, 7 patients each had high and intermediate-high risk factors for recurrence in their surgical specimens in the C arm vs. 2 and 3 patients, respectively, with these characteristics in the CG arm. The number of weekly doses and the dose intensity of GC were lower than for C. The time to complete external beam radiotherapy also favored the C arm. The CG combination produced greater GI and hematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION: The radiosensitizing combination of GC achieved a greater pathologic response rate than C in the treatment of cervical cancer.