Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC over a 10-year lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Costs and utilities were derived from the drug procurement platform and published literature. The model outcomes comprised of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty and ensure the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.337 QALYs and incremental costs of $7,117.007 compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, generating an ICER of $21,116.75 per QALY, which was between 1 time ($12,674.89/QALY) and 3 times GDP ($38,024.67/QALY) per capita. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER is most affected by the cost of oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and tislelizumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 1 or 3 times GDP per capita, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 1% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was probably cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic OSCC in China.

Cost-utility of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: ORIENT-16, a phase III clinical trial conducted at 62 hospitals in China, reported that add-on sintilimab (Sin) to chemotherapy (Chemo) had favorable efficacy (p < 0.05) for patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Sin+Chemo based on results of ORIENT-16 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payers. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC. Primary measure outcomes were: cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity/scenario analyses were conducted to assess the model robustness. RESULTS: In all patients, Sin+Chemo vs Chemo increased costs by $6,472, additionally providing 0.61 QALYs, resulting in an ICUR of $10,610/QALY. While, in PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 cohort, the ICUR was $9,738/QALYs. The ICUR was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that add-on Sin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,625/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Sin+Chemo is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ORIENT-16, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03745170.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic evaluation based on network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several economic studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors compared to second-line chemotherapy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, there is a lack of economic comparisons among the different PD-1 inhibitors. AIM: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, camrelizumab, and tislelizumab) in second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC within the Chinese healthcare system. METHOD: The clinical trials were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We established a fractional polynomials model to conduct a network meta-analysis, enabling the calculation of hazard ratios and expected survival rates. Economic outcomes were estimated using a partitioned survival model. The costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. The threshold for willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was set at three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to address uncertainties in the model. RESULTS: Four phase III randomized controlled trials were included, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four PD-1 inhibitors, camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, compared to chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC. For camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $27,375.43/QALY, $205,312.19/QALY, $9,266.73/QALY, and $220,368.10/QALY, respectively. The SA results indicated the robustness of the base analysis findings. CONCLUSION: From the Chinese healthcare system, under the WTP of $38,253.48/QALY, tislelizumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of nivolumab first-line and second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing first-line and second-line nivolumab therapy for advanced esophageal cancer was performed to support public healthcare in Japan. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to predict costs and outcomes. Survival data were obtained from two phase 3 clinical trials (Attraction-3 and Checkmate-648), and direct medical costs were estimated from the perspective of the Japanese National Health Insurance payer. The time horizon for the model was set to 20 years. Health outcomes were calculated and defined as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to those of control therapy. A sensitivity analysis was performed based on parameter settings and model uncertainties. A willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million Japanese yen (JPY) was established. RESULTS: Compared to that of each control therapy, the ICER for nivolumab per QALY gained was 15,712,265 JPY (143,099 USD) for first-line combination therapy with chemotherapy in the overall population, 10,657,085 JPY (97,059 USD) in the population with ≥ 1% Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and 41,184,322 JPY (375,085 USD) for second-line nivolumab monotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that nivolumab was cost-effective as a first-line therapy for the overall population (61.5%) and for the population with ≥ 1% PD-L1 expression (76.5%), but not as second-line monotherapy (32.3%). CONCLUSION: Nivolumab is recommended as a first-line therapy in combination with chemotherapy owing to its cost-effectiveness, but not as a second-line monotherapy. Patient selection based on PD-L1 expression may help to improve the cost-effectiveness of using nivolumab as a first-line treatment.

First-Line Tislelizumab for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma:A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this current study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating tislelizumab into the first-line treatment of metastatic or advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in comparison to placebo with chemotherapy. METHOD: We conducted a partitioned survival model with a time horizon of 10 years from a Chinese perspective. The direct medical costs were collected from the local setting in China. To enhance the credibility and robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: The inclusion of tislelizumab in conjunction with chemotherapy was shown to significantly enhance quality-adjusted life years (QALY) by 0.328 when compared to chemotherapy alone. This improvement comes at an additional cost of $9833.694. The incorporation of tislelizumab into the treatment regimen for advanced ESCC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $29980.774/QALY gained, which falls below the WTP threshold of $37304.346/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that no parameters were found to be adjustable within a specific range without altering the overall outcomes of our study. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC is may be a cost-effective option compared to chemotherapy alone.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line option for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of Chinese health-care system. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was conducted to track 3-week patients' transition and evaluate the health and economic outcomes in 10-year horizon of the two competing first-line treatment among toripalimab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. The survival data were gathered from the JUPITER-06 trial, and cost and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment with toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields marginal cost of $8,639.74 and additional 0.65 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $13,280.97 per additional QALY gained, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,224 in China. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be the cost-effective first-line option for patients with advanced ESCC compared with chemotherapy alone with the WTP threshold of $38,224 per additional QALY gained from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.

Economic evaluation of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVE: The ASTRUM-007 study confirmed the significant efficacy and safety of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic, programmed cell death-ligand 1 positive oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The economics of this regimen, however, is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. DESIGN: A partitioned survival model was established to simulate the costs and outcomes of chemotherapy versus serplulimab plus chemotherapy. The survival data came from the ASTRUM-007 study. Only direct medical costs were considered, and utility values were referred to the literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on the model. OUTCOME MEASURES: Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that the cost of serplulimab plus chemotherapy (US$69 356) was US$41 607 higher than that of chemotherapy (US$27 749), but it also gained 0.38 QALYs more (1.38 vs 1 QALYs), with an ICER of US$110 744.36/QALY, which was higher than the willingness to pay. The factors that most influenced the ICER were the price of serplulimab, weight and utility value of the progression-free survival stage. The subgroup analysis and scenario analysis also demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not economical. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab coupled with chemotherapy was not cost-effective for the treatment of advanced OSCC in China.

Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients with Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a prevalent and highly malignant tumor with a poor prognosis. Recently, the RATIONALE-306 trial demonstrated that tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy provided overall survival benefits for these patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this treatment approach in Chinese patients with advanced ESCC from the perspective of healthcare system. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to assess the economic and health benefits associated with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy over a 10-year lifetime horizon, utilizing data from the RATIONALE-306 trial. The analysis encompassed the calculation of several key parameters, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), total cost, incremental cost, total effectiveness, and incremental effectiveness. Tislelizumab was considered cost-effective if the ICER obtained was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$38,223 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); otherwise, it would be deemed not cost-effective. To ensure the robustness of the findings, the results were subjected to one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost associated with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy alone, were determined to be 0.40 QALY and US$7604, respectively. This resulted in an ICER of US$18,846 per QALY, which is below the WTP threshold of US$38,223 per QALY. Furthermore, the results from the one-way sensitivity analysis and PSA indicated robustness of the findings. CONCLUSION: Our lifetime simulation study demonstrated that, in the case of advanced ESCC, the combination of tislelizumab and chemotherapy offers increased effectiveness compared to chemotherapy alone, albeit at a higher cost. Moreover, considering the current WTP threshold in China, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy is considered a cost-effective approach.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab as first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was created to evaluate costs and health outcomes. The model's robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Serplulimab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $104,537.375/quality-adjusted life-year in the overall population group. Subgroup analysis showed that serplulimab had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $261,750.496/quality-adjusted life-year and $68,107.997/quality-adjusted life-year in the populations with PD-L1 1 ≤ combined positive score <10 and PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10, respectively. Conclusion: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of serplulimab therapy were found to exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,304.34. Thus, serplulimab is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Current status and future perspectives for the treatment of resectable locally advanced esophagogastric junction cancer: A narrative review.

Incidence rates for esophagogastric junction cancer are rising rapidly worldwide possibly due to the economic development and demographic changes. Therefore, increased attention has been paid to the prevention, diagnosis, and the treatment of esophagogastric junction cancer. Although there are discrepancies in the treatment strategy between Asian and Western countries, surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for esophagogastric junction cancer. Recent developments of perioperative multidisciplinary treatment may lead to better therapeutic effect, higher complete resection rate, and better control of the residual diseases, thus result in prolonged prognosis. In this review, we will focus on the treatment of locally advanced resectable esophagogastric junction cancer, and discuss the current status and future perspectives of the perioperative treatment including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy, as well as the surgical strategy. Better understanding of the latest treatment strategy and future overlook may enable to standardize and individualize the treatment for esophagogastric junction cancer, thus leading to better prognosis for those patients.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Camrelizumab combination therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has considerable survival benefits. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with ESCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) over a 20-year time horizon. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy increased QALYs by 0.30 (0.43 LYs), with an incremental cost of $9,272. The ICERs for camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone was $31,062/QALY ($21,599/LY), and the INHB was 0.05 QALY at the cost-effective threshold of $37,653/QALY (3 times China's GDP per capita). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was the most sensitive to utility values in the PFS state. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that camrelizumab combination therapy had a probability of 74.04% cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $37,653/QALY. Scenario analyses confirmed that the findings were robust. CONCLUSIONS: Camrelizumab combination therapy is likely to have a cost-effectiveness advantage over chemotherapy alone for previously untreated advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Treatment burden and cost-effectiveness analysis of the neoadjuvant CROSS regimen in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.

High-quality evidence indicated that both neoadjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CROSS) and cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (PF) regimens in combination with radiotherapy improve survival outcomes compared to surgery alone in patients with esophageal cancer. It is not yet known whether they may differ in terms of treatment burden and healthcare costs. A total of 232 Taiwanese patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had undergone neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with either the CROSS (n = 153) or the PF (n = 79) regimens were included. Hospital encounters and adverse events were assessed for determining treatment burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using the total costs incurred over 3 years in relation to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with PF, the CROSS regimen was associated with a lower treatment burden: shorter inpatient days on average (4.65 ± 10.05 vs. 15.14 ± 17.63 days; P < 0.001) and fewer admission requirements (70% of the patients were never admitted vs. 20% in the PF group; P < 0.001). Patients in the CROSS group experienced significantly less nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. While the benefits observed in the CROSS group were associated with additional nCRT-related expenditures (1388 United States dollars [USD] of added cost per patient), this regimen remained cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 USD per life-year, the probability of the CROSS regimen to be more cost-effective than PF was 94.1% for PFS but decreased to 68.9% for OS. The use of the CROSS regimen for nCRT in patients with ESCC was associated with a lower treatment burden and was more cost-effective than PF.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

Objective: The ASTRUM-007 trial (NCT03958890) demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2-week significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with previously untreated, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 2-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The survival data, direct medical costs and utilities were derived from the ASTRUM-007 trial, YAOZHI database and published sources. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters. Results: Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $33,460.86, which had an ICER of $124,483.07 per QALY. The subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $134,637.42 and $105,589.71 in advanced ESCC patients with 1 ≤ CPS < 10 and CPS ≥ 10, respectively. The price of serplulimab, patient weight, utility values and discount rate were the most influential parameters on base-case results. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita GDP ($40,587.59) in 2022, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0% compared with chemotherapy. When the price of serplulimab decreased by 70%, the probabilities of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective were 81.42%, 67.74% and 96.75% in advanced ESCC patients with PD-L1-positive, PD-L1 1≤CPS<10 and CPS≥10, respectively. Conclusion: Serplulimab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC might not be cost-effective in China.

Economic evaluation of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab versus Chemotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was designed. Clinical data on survival was taken from the JUPITER-06 trials. Direct medical expenditures and utilities were gathered from published literature and a local database. One-way and probability sensitivity methods were used to evaluate the model's robustness. RESULTS: Compared with chemotherapy alone, toripalimab offered an incremental cost of $8950.427 with an additional 0.294 QALYs, yielding an ICER of 30,443.629$/QALYs first-line therapy for advanced ESCC. The ICER was below the threshold of willingness to pay in China, indicating that the toripalimab group had a cost-effective advantage. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICERs were most sensitive to the utility of PD, but all the parameters had no significant impact on the model's outcomes. CONCLUSION: Toripalimab may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice in our research when compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced ESCC.

A UK cost-effectiveness analysis of trifluridine/tipiracil for heavily pretreated metastatic gastroesophageal cancers.

Background: The current work was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) versus best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced stage or metastatic gastroesophageal cancer (mGC) from a UK perspective. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival analysis was undertaken using data from the phase III TAGS trial. A jointly fitted lognormal model was selected for overall survival and individual generalized gamma models were chosen for progression-free survival and time-to-treatment-discontinuation. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to investigate uncertainty. Results: Compared with BSC, T/T was associated with a cost per QALY gained of £37,907. Conclusion: T/T provides a cost-effective treatment option for mGC in the UK setting.

Efficacy and Cost-effectiveness of Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Febrile Neutropenia During Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and 5-Fluorouracil Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The docetaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and cisplatin (DCF) regimen is an effective form of chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer. However, the incidence of adverse events, such as febrile neutropenia (FN), is high. This study retrospectively examined whether pegfilgrastim treatment reduces FN development during DCF therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study evaluated 52 patients who were diagnosed with esophageal cancer and underwent DCF therapy at Jikei Daisan Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, between 2016 and 2020. They were divided into non-pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim-treated groups, and side-effects of chemotherapy and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim were examined. RESULTS: Eighty-six cycles of DCF therapy were conducted (33 and 53 cycles, respectively). FN was observed in 20 (60.6%) and seven (13.2%) cases, respectively (p<0.001). The lowest absolute neutrophil count during chemotherapy was significantly lower in the non-pegfilgrastim group (p<0.001), and the number of days until improvement from nadir was significantly shorter in the pegfilgrastim group (9 vs. 11 days; p<0.001). No significant difference was found in the onset of grade 2 or more adverse events by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. However, renal dysfunction was significantly lower in the pegfilgrastim group (30.7% vs. 60.6%, p=0.038). Hospitalization costs were also significantly lower in this group (692,839 vs. 879,431 Japanese yen, p=0.028). CONCLUSION: This study revealed the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim in prevention of FN in patients treated with DCF.

Cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Background: Sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of this high-priced therapy is currently unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as fist-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost and effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of OSCC. Key clinical data in the model came from the ORIENT-15 trial. Costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and model stability. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed. Results: Treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.37 QALYs and an incremental cost of $8,046.58 compared with chemotherapy, which resulted in an ICER of $21,782.24 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to utility of progression-free survival (PFS) and the cost of sintilimab. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0.01%, 76.80% and 98.60% at the threshold of 1, 2 or 3 times GDP per capita per QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis found that all subgroups other than PD-L1 expression combined positive scores < 1 subgroup favored sintilimab plus chemotherapy treatment due to its association with positive INHBs by varying the hazard ratios for OS and PFS. The scenario analyses showed altering the time horizon of the model or fitting survival curves separately did not reverse results of the model. Conclusion: Sintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with improved QALYs and an additional cost but was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC at the commonly adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It has been approved for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) as the first-line treatment due to significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the JUPITER-06 trial. AIM: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness between toripalimab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese health system. METHOD: The study developed a 3-year partitioned survival model to assess costs and outcomes in two treatment groups with or without toripalimab. The critical indicator was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings and identify the parameters with the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy were 0.26 quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) and $11,254.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $43,405.09/QALY, higher than the 2021 willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($37,658.70/QALY). The results were sensitive to the utility of PFS, the incidence of neutropenia in the toripalimab group, and the cost of toripalimab. The toripalimab plus chemotherapy group was cost-effective only if the price of toripalimab decreased by more than 40%. CONCLUSION: Adding toripalimab to chemotherapy was not cost-effective in patients with advanced ESCC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Toripalimab Plus Paclitaxel and Cisplatin as First-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: First-line treatment with toripalimab plus paclitaxel and cisplatin (TTP) is very effective for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in China, although its effects on economic burden are unknown. The present study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TTP from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A Markov model was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with TTP for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. Survival data were derived from the JUPITER-06 trial. The costs and utilities were gathered from the literature and a local database. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: The total cost of TTP was $123,646.43 and gained 1.10 QALYs, while the paclitaxel and cisplatin (TP) chemotherapy group yielded 0.84 QALY at cost of $16,259.65. First-line TTP treatment yielded an incremental cost of $7,386.78 with an additional 0.26 QALY, providing an ICER of $28,348.42/QALY, which was lower than the WTP threshold ($36,257.91) in China. CONCLUSIONS: TTP was likely more cost-effective than TP chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. This study may provide evidence required to establish decision-making criteria to support guidance for cost-effective selection of an immunotherapeutic regimen.