Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Recent advancements in targeted therapies have improved outcomes for advanced HCC, yet therapeutic options remain limited. The CARES-310 trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus rivoceranib significantly improves survival compared to sorafenib for advanced HCC.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC from the Chinese health system perspective.

Design

The cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate clinical and economic outcomes for patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC. The model included three health states: progression-free, progression disease, and death. The hypothetical cohort consisted of patients aged ⩾18 with HCC who had not received systemic therapy, reflecting the CARES-310 trial. Clinical data were derived from the CARES-310 trial and extrapolated using standard parameter distributions. Direct medical costs and utilities were sourced from the CARES-310 trial and published literature.

Results

The 10-year cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was higher than sorafenib (USD 28,148.01 vs USD 20,997.86). Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib yielded an additional 0.26 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of USD 7150.15, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 27,633.75/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case results.

Conclusion

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib is likely a cost-effective first-line treatment for unresectable HCC from a Chinese health system perspective. This study highlights the need for additional real-world data to validate these findings and guide clinical decision-making for HCC.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

AIMS

To examine the cost-effectiveness of first-line systemic therapies recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (uHCC) from the US social and payer's perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a three-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, tremelimumab plus durvalumab, durvalumab, lenvatinib and sorafenib as first-line treatments for uHCC. Clinical efficacy was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year time horizon, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab yielded the highest QALYs. Compared to sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, tremelimumab plus durvalumab and lenvatinib had ICERs of $196 704/QALY, $800 755/QALY and $2 032 756/QALY, respectively. Sorafenib was dominated by durvalumab due to lower QALYs and higher costs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that durvalumab had a 99.96% probability of providing the highest net monetary benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, durvalumab is likely the most cost-effective first-line systemic therapy for uHCC compared to sorafenib. Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab yielded the highest QALYs, their ICERs exceeded the commonly accepted cost-effectiveness threshold ($150 000$ per QALY gained). These findings can inform clinical decision-making, resource allocation and future research priorities in managing uHCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: perspectives from the United States and China

Purpose

The efficacy of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in improving progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in unresectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) has recently been emphasized. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for the United States (US) and Chinese populations.

Methods

Using data from the RATIONALE-305 phase 3 trial, a Markov model was developed to analyze quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net health benefits (INHBs), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). The health state utilities and direct medical costs were obtained from the relevant literature and local cost databases. The model uncertainty was evaluated using sensitivity analyses.

Findings

In the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy yielded an ICER of $37,768.48 per QALY in China, slightly below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,042.49 per QALY, showing marginal cost-effectiveness with an INHB of 0.05 QALYs and an INMB of $1,852.49. Subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $23,853.52 for patients with a PD-L1 TAP score ≥ 5% (TAP ≥ 5%). In the US, the ICER was $502,786.22 per QALY in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and $321,395.28 per QALY in the TAP ≥ 5% subgroup, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00.

Implications

In China, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line therapy for unresectable GC/GEJC in both ITT and TAP ≥ 5% subgroups. In the US, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective.

Preparation and characterization of Sorafenib nano-emulsion: impact on pharmacokinetics and toxicity; an in vitro and in vivo study

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ranks as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Current treatment strategies include surgical resection, liver transplantation, liver-directed therapy, and systemic therapy. Sorafenib (Sor) is the first systemic drug authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for HCC treatment. Nevertheless, the conventional oral administration of Sor presents several limitations: poor solubility, low bioavailability, drug resistance development, and off-target tissue accumulation, leading to numerous adverse effects. Nano-emulsion, a nano-delivery system, is a viable carrier for poorly water-soluble drugs. It aims to enhance drug bioavailability, target organ accumulation, and reduce off-target tissue exposure, thus improving therapeutic outcomes while minimizing side effects. This study formulated Sor nano-emulsion (Sor NanoEm) using the homogenization technique. The resultant nano-emulsion was characterized by particle size (121.75 ± 12 nm), polydispersity index (PDI; 0.310), zeta potential (-12.33 ± 1.34 mV), viscosity (34,776 ± 3276 CPs), and pH (4.38 ± 0.3). Transmission Electron Microscopy exhibited spherical nano-droplets with no aggregation signs indicating stability. Furthermore, the encapsulation of Sor within the nano-emulsion sustained its release, potentially reducing the frequency of therapeutic doses. Cytotoxicity assessments on the HepG2 cell line revealed that Sor NanoEm had a significantly (P < 0.05) more potent cytotoxic effect compared to Sor suspension. Subsequent tests highlighted superior pharmacokinetic parameters and reduced dosage requirements of Sor NanoEm in mice. It exhibited an enhanced safety profile, particularly in behavior, brain, and liver, compared to its suspended form. These findings underscore the enhanced pharmacological and toxicological attributes of Sor Nano-emulsion, suggesting its potential utility in HCC treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus tremelimumab as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

The HIMALAYA trial found that durvalumab plus tremelimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with sorafenib.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus tremelimumab compared with sorafenib in the first-line HCC setting.

Design

A Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

We created a Markov model to compare healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of HCC patients treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab in the first-line setting compared with sorafenib. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials. Lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab compared with sorafenib from a US payer's perspective.

Results

In the base case, first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab was associated with an improvement of 0.29 QALYs compared with sorafenib. While both treatment strategies were associated with considerable lifetime expenditures, first-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab was less expensive than sorafenib ($188,405 vs $218,584). The incremental net monetary benefit for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus sorafenib was $72,762 (valuing QALYs at $150,000 each). The results of durvalumab plus tremelimumab were better in terms of costs and health outcomes in patients with HBV-related HCC and high alpha-fetoprotein levels.

Conclusion

First-line durvalumab plus tremelimumab was estimated to be dominant for the treatment of unresectable HCC compared with sorafenib from a US payer's perspective.

The current status and future of targeted-immune combination for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers and the third leading cause of death worldwide. surgery, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), systemic therapy, local ablation therapy, radiotherapy, and targeted drug therapy with agents such as sorafenib. However, the tumor microenvironment of liver cancer has a strong immunosuppressive effect. Therefore, new treatments for liver cancer are still necessary. Immune checkpoint molecules, such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), along with high levels of immunosuppressive cytokines, induce T cell inhibition and are key mechanisms of immune escape in HCC. Recently, immunotherapy based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as monotherapy or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anti-angiogenesis drugs, chemotherapy agents, and topical therapies has offered great promise in the treatment of liver cancer. In this review, we discuss the latest advances in ICIs combined with targeted drugs (targeted-immune combination) and other targeted-immune combination regimens for the treatment of patients with advanced HCC (aHCC) or unresectable HCC (uHCC), and provide an outlook on future prospects. The literature reviewed spans the last five years and includes studies identified using keywords such as "hepatocellular carcinoma," "immune checkpoint inhibitors," "targeted therapy," "combination therapy," and "immunotherapy".

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Chemotherapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: A Comparative Analysis of HAIC-FO and Sorafenib

BACKGROUND The FOHAIC-1 trial showed hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) improved survival, compared with sorafenib, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness comparison between HAIC-FO and sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. MATERIAL AND METHODS The economic evaluation was conducted between July 2023 and February 2024, spanning a 10-year investment horizon. A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of HAIC-FO vs sorafenib. Health states incorporated in the model comprised progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Transition probabilities were derived from data obtained from the FOHAIC-1 trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Additionally, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the model's robustness. RESULTS The HAIC-FO group accrued a total cost of $22,781, whereas the sorafenib group totaled $18,795. In terms of effectiveness, the HAIC-FO group achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas the sorafenib group attained 0.65 QALYs. Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO yielded an additional 0.41 QALYs at a cost of additional $3,985, resulting in an incremental cost of $9,720 per QALY gained. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed the final ICER remained below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,492 per QALY, when considering parameter fluctuations. Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 99.8% probability that the ICER for HAIC-FO compared with sorafenib would fall below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO emerged as a cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients facing advanced HCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review

Since 2017, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been available for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or unresectable HCC, but their adoption into national medical insurance programs is still limited. Cost-effectiveness evidence can help to inform treatment decisions. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical summary of economic evaluations of ICIs as a treatment for advanced HCC and identify key drivers (PROSPERO 2023: CRD42023417391). The databases used included Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Economic evaluations of ICIs for the treatment of advanced HCC were included. Studies were screened by two people. Of the 898 records identified, 17 articles were included. The current evidence showed that ICIs, including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sintilimab plus bevacizumab/bevacizumab biosimilar, nivolumab, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, tislelizumab, durvalumab, and cabozantinib plus atezolizumab, are probably not cost-effective in comparison with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or other ICIs. The most influential parameters were price of anticancer drugs, hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, and utility for health statest. Our review demonstrated that ICIs were not a cost-effective intervention in advanced HCC. Although ICIs can significantly enhance the survival of patients with advanced HCC, decision-makers should consider the findings of economic evaluations and affordability before adoption of new therapies.

Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated in the lenvatinib and immunotherapy era (2018-2021) compared to the sorafenib era (2008-2018)

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib (LEN) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A + B) have drastically changed the treatment paradigm for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Before these landmark trials, sorafenib (SOR) served as the standard first-line treatment for a decade. Our study aimed to assess the outcomes of HCC patients treated during the SOR era (2008-2018) in contrast to those in the post-SOR era (2018-2021), of which the predominant first-line treatments were LEN or A + B.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria of the study were all HCC patients in the Canadian province of Alberta who started first-line systemic therapy at cancer centers between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2021. Survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), along with clinician-assessed response rate (RR), were subject to retrospective analysis.

RESULTS

Of 372 total patients, 230 received treatment in the SOR era and 142 in the post-SOR era. The demographic and clinical characteristics for the SOR era and post-SOR era groups are as follows, respectively: the median age was 63 and 64 years, 80% and 81% were male, and 24% and 11% were of East Asian ethnicity. Before receiving systemic treatment, 40% and 33% received TACE, 7% and 9% received TARE, and 3% and 14% received SBRT in the two eras, respectively. In the post-SOR era, patients received A + B (23%), LEN (51%), and SOR (23%) as first-line treatment. There was a statistically significant improvement in RR (15% vs. 26%; p = 0.02), median PFS (3.8 months vs. 7.9 months; p < 0.0001), and median OS (9.8 months vs. 17.0 months; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective multicenter real-world study, HCC patients treated in the post-SOR era, where LEN and A + B were commonly used first-line treatments, exhibited superior OS, PFS, and RR compared to patients treated in the SOR era. The findings of this study affirm the tangible progress achieved in the real world in enhancing outcomes for HCC patients through advancements in treatments over the past 15 years.

Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Targeted-Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Cost-effectiveness Analyses

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BVC) co-administration is one of the newest systemic interventions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHCC). This treatment approach is more costly and effective than other therapeutic interventions, significantly improving AHCC survival and health-related quality of life.

AIM

This economic study aimed to systematically review all cost-effectiveness analyses of ATZ/BVC combination in AHCC.

METHOD

A comprehensive search in scientific databases was performed using a highly sensitive syntax to find all related economic evaluations. The target population was AHCC patients. The intervention was ATZ/BVC, which was compared with sorafenib, nivolumab, and other anticancer strategies. We included studies that reported quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and/or life-years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and finally, the characteristics of included studies were categorized.

RESULTS

Out of 315 identified records, 12 cost-effectiveness analyses were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Treatment costs were significantly higher with ATZ/BVC in all studies (from 61,397 to 253,687 USD/patient compared to sorafenib and nivolumab, respectively). Incremental QALYs/patient varied from 0.35 to 0.86 compared to sintilimab/BVC and sorafenib. Although ICERs for drugs varied widely, all were united in the lack of cost-effectiveness of the ATZ/BVC. The willingness-to-pay threshold in all studies was lower than the ICER, which indicated a reluctance to pay for this treatment strategy by the health systems.

CONCLUSION

The ATZ/BVC combination is an expensive targeted immunotherapy in AHCC. Significant discounts in ATZ and BVC prices are essential for this novel approach to be cost-effective and extensively used.

First-line treatments for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and chemotherapy is a promising first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The cost-effectiveness of combinations with different ICIs is yet to be compared.

Methods

We utilized Bayesian network meta-analyses for the comparisons of overall survival, progression-free survival, and incidence of adverse events of the included treatments in the total population and subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportional scores (TPS). The cost-effectiveness of the treatments from the perspectives of the US and Chinese healthcare systems was assessed using Markov models.

Results

Three combinations, including pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (PembroC), nivolumab + ipilimumab + chemotherapy (NivoIpiC), and atezolizumab + chemotherapy (AteC), were included in our study. In terms of efficacy, PembroC was most likely to be ranked first for extending progression-free survival (PFS) (93.16%) and overall survival (OS) (90.73%). Nevertheless, from the US perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $68,963.1/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and $179,355.6/QALY, respectively, compared with AteC. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were primarily sensitive to the hazard ratios for OS or the cost of immunotherapy agents. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, NivoIpiC had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%). As for the Chinese perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC had ICERs of $145,983.4/QALY and $195,863.3/QALY versus AteC, respectively. The results were primarily sensitive to the HRs for OS. At a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, AteC had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (94%).

Conclusion

Although PembroC has the optimal efficacy, NivoIpiC and AteC were the most favorable treatments in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC from the US and Chinese perspectives, respectively.

Cost-utility analysis of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have proven the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab (A+B) in treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of A+B compared to best supportive care (BSC) among uHCC patients in Thailand.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. We used a three-state Markov model to estimate relevant costs and health outcomes over the lifetime horizon. Local cost and utility data from Thai patients were applied. All costs were adjusted to 2023 values using the consumer price index. We reported results as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in United States dollars ($) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. We discounted future costs and outcomes at 3% per annum. We then performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess parameter uncertainty. The budget impact was conducted to estimate the financial burden from the governmental perspective over a five-year period.

RESULTS

Compared to BSC, A+B provided a better health benefit with 0.8309 QALY gained at an incremental lifetime cost of $45,357. The ICER was $54,589 per QALY gained. The result was sensitive to the hazard ratios for the overall survival and progression-free survival of A+B. At the current Thai willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $4,678 per QALY gained, the ICER of A+B remained above the threshold. The projected budgetary requirements for implementing A+B in the respective first and fifth years would range from 8.2 to 27.9 million USD.

CONCLUSION

Although A+B yielded the highest clinical benefit compared with BSC for the treatment of uHCC patients, A+B is not cost-effective in Thailand at the current price and poses budgetary challenges.

Systemic therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: A revolution?

The evolution in systemic therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) signifies a strategy of high-cost, high-gain innovation that originated with sorafenib, despite its limited impact on tumor response. This strategic approach paved the way for the emergence of a second wave of the short-lived competitive advantage, exemplified by the incorporation of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and tremelimumab plus durvalumab. In the context of safety concerns within the liver cancer domain, the IMBRAVE150 and HIMALAYA trials boldly incorporated bevacizumab and tremelimumab, respectively, demonstrating the continuation of the high-risk, high-reward innovation paradigm. This review delves into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis of systemic therapies in the field of HCC.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

Adjuvant sintilimab in resected high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly when accompanied by microvascular invasion (MVI), has a markedly high risk of recurrence after liver resection. Adjuvant immunotherapy is considered a promising avenue. This multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted at six hospitals in China to assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant sintilimab, a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor, in these patients. Eligible patients with HCC with MVI were randomized (1:1) into the sintilimab or active surveillance group. The sintilimab group received intravenous injections every 3 weeks for a total of eight cycles. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. From September 1, 2020, to April 23, 2022, a total of 198 eligible patients were randomly allocated to receive adjuvant sintilimab (n = 99) or undergo active surveillance (n = 99). After a median follow-up of 23.3 months, the trial met the prespecified endpoints. Sintilimab significantly prolonged RFS compared to active surveillance (median RFS, 27.7 versus 15.5 months; hazard ratio 0.534, 95% confidence interval 0.360-0.792; P = 0.002). Further follow-up is needed to confirm the difference in OS. In the sintilimab group, 12.4% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, the most common of which were elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (5.2%) and anemia (4.1%). These findings support the potential of immune checkpoint inhibitors as effective adjuvant therapy for these high-risk patients. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR2000037655 .

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Cabozantinib as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

We first evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with cabozantinib alone as a first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from a US healthcare payer perspective. In the present study, we found that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was not cost-effective compared with cabozantinib alone for first-line treatment of mRCC.

METHODS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the CheckMate 9ER and CABOSUN trials and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using the Log-Logistic model. The cost and health preference data were collected from published literature before.

RESULTS

The estimated cost for nivolumab plus cabozantinib group was 654 851.32 USD, which was higher than 312 360.47 USD estimated for cabozantinib alone group, resulting in an incremental cost (IC) of 342 490.85 USD. Compared with cabozantinib alone group, nivolumab plus cabozantinib group gains 1.19 QALYs, resulting the ICER was 288 443.23 USD per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested the cost of nivolumab, the discount rate, and the cost of cabozantinib had a great impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of nivolumab plus cabozantinib being cost-effective was 9.9% at a threshold of 150,000 USD per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this economic evaluation suggest nivolumab plus cabozantinib is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with cabozantinib alone as first-line treatment for mRCC at WTP thresholds of 150,000 USD per QALY from the perspective of US payers. A substantial price reduction for nivolumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab in combination with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy compared to cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Background

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in treating advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) within the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model based on ASTRUM-007 trial patient characteristics was developed. Efficacy, safety, and medical/economic data were obtained from the trial and real-world clinical practice. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for both treatment strategies. Sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty impact.

Results

Serplulimab combined with chemotherapy yielded an ICER of US$ 53,538.27/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified patient survival and serplulimab price as influential parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 47.33% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$ 53,541/QALY and 0.05% at three times China's GDP per capita. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression combined positive score (CPS) ⩾10 had a lower hazard ratio (0.59) and ICER (US$ 29,935.23/QALY), with a 95.36% probability of cost-effectiveness. Scenario analysis demonstrated that the drug donation discount policy significantly increased the likelihood of cost-effective serplulimab-chemotherapy combinations in Jiangsu, Fujian, and Guangdong at 99.99%, 99.90%, and 94.16%, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared to chemotherapy alone, serplulimab combined with chemotherapy is currently not a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic ESCC in China. However, as serplulimab plus chemotherapy regimens evolve and price competition among programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors intensifies, this combination may become a cost-effective treatment option.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in first line treatment for Chinese subpopulation with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo-bev) versus sorafenib treatment in Taiwan.

Methods

Using sorafenib as the comparator, we developed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of the atezo-bev treatment. The time horizon of the study was 15 years, and the annual discount rate was 3%. We analyzed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) from the treatment effects (determined from the progression-free and overall survival outcomes of the IMbrave150 study), direct medical costs (collected and estimated from the National Health Insurance Research Database, Taiwan), and utility parameters (referred to the NICE technology appraisal guidance), as well as the deterministic sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity.

Results

Compared with sorafenib, the incremental effectiveness of atezo-bev treatment was 1.7 QALY, with an incremental cost of USD 127,607. The ICER was USD 75,192 per QALY, which was less than the predefined willingness to pay in Taiwan.

Conclusion

The combined treatment of atezo-bev is cost-effective when compared with sorafenib, which is currently the first-line treatment option for unresectable HCC in Taiwan.

Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have recently been introduced into the treatment algorithm of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with pre-existing therapies for HCC has not been assessed. We performed a meta-analysis to understand the incremental cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (2000-2022). The incremental cost, incremental effectiveness, incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICI compared with sorafenib and willingness to pay (WTP) were extracted from each study. The variables were used to derive the incremental net benefit (INB). Random-effect meta-analysis was then conducted to derive the pooled INB of ICI compared with sorafenib.

RESULTS

Five studies (3265 patients, 82.1 % male) met inclusion criteria. All studies assessed the cost effectiveness of ICIs compared with sorafenib. Studies used Quality adjusted life years to assess incremental effectiveness and reported ICER values ranging from $21,000 to $221,000 for ICIs and sorafenib. Four out of five studies reported that ICI had a higher ICER compared with sorafenib at WTP $150,000. The overall pooled INB was US$-42,000 (95 % CIUS$-96,000, US$11,528) suggesting that ICI was not cost effective compared with sorafenib.

CONCLUSION

When compared with sorafenib, ICIs were not a cost-effective option for systemic therapy for patients with HCC. More work focusing on cost effective options for patients with HCC is warranted.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC.

METHODS

We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Combination as a First Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common leading causes of cancer death worldwide. As most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, systemic therapy remains the backbone of treatment. In recent years, we have witnessed the transformation of advanced HCC treatment landscapes from single-agent targeted therapies to immunotherapy combinations, with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab becoming the new first-line standard of care with an increase in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared to sorafenib, and a positive impact on quality of life. Although the efficacy and safety of this combination have been confirmed regardless of ethnicity, age, and etiology, only a subgroup of patients seems to benefit the most from this treatment. Currently, predictive serum and tissue biomarkers to select patients who are most likely to respond to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab are lacking. Moreover, the optimal subsequent therapy for patients who progress on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab remains unknown, clinical trials are ongoing, and real-world data are needed to determine the most effective treatment sequence. Importantly, careful evaluation of bleeding risk and preservation of adequate liver function are fundamental to improve patients' prognosis, especially when subsequent treatments are administered.

Sensitivity Analysis in Economic Evaluations of Immuno-Oncology Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to review, assess, and report the characteristics and strategies of sensitivity analyses (SAs) that were performed in the context of published economic evaluations of immuno-oncology drugs.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and MEDLINE for articles published from 2005 to 2021. Study selection, based on a predefined set of criteria, was performed by 2 reviewers independently. We included economic evaluations of Food and Drug Administration-approved immuno-oncology drugs that were published in English and assessed the accompanying SAs on a set of items, including the range justification of the baseline parameters within the deterministic SA, the provisions for the correlation/overlay between parameters, and the justification of the chosen parameter distribution for the probabilistic SA, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 98 of 295 publications met the inclusion criteria. A total of 90 studies included a one-way and probabilistic SA and 16 of 98 studies had one-way and scenario analysis, alone or together with probabilistic analysis. Most studies provide explicit references as to the choice of parameters and values; nevertheless, there is a lack of a reference of correlation/overlay between parameters in most of the evaluations. In 26 of 98 studies, the most influential parameter for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was the under-evaluation drug cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of included articles contained an SA that was implemented according to commonly accepted published guidance. The under-evaluation drug cost, the estimates of progression-free survival, the hazard ratio for overall survival, and the time horizon of the analysis seem to play an important part in the robustness of the outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus IBI305 versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

Sintilimab combined with IBI305 treatment regimen had potential clinical benefits than sorafenib in the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma (HCC). However, whether sintilimab plus IBI305 has economic benefits in China remains unclear.

METHODS

From the perspective of Chinese payers, we used the Markov model to simulate patients with HCC receiving treatment with sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib. The transition probability between health states was estimated using the parametric survival model, and the cumulative medical costs and utility of the two treatment methods were estimated. Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the evaluation index, sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

Compared to sorafenib, sintilimab plus IBI305 generated an additional $17552.17 and 0.33 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an ICER of $52817.89. The analysis outcomes were most sensitive to the total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,334, sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a 1.28% probability of being cost-effective. The total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305 should be reduced by at least 31.9% to be accepted by Chinese payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of whether the price of sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib is covered by Medicare, sintilimab plus IBI305 is unlikely to be cost-effective for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.

A bibliometric study on the utilization of lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma (2014-2022)

Background: The REFLECT phase-III trial has demonstrated the efficacy of lenvatinib in improving the overall survival of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, comparable to sorafenib. The rapidly evolving landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma therapy presents new avenues for lenvatinib. This study aims to provide a scientometric analysis of publications and predict research hotspots in this field. Methods: Relevant publications were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database up until November 2022. The bibliometrix tool in R was employed for scientometric analysis and visualization. Results: A total of 879 publications from 2014 to 2022 were obtained from WoSCC that met the established criteria. These studies involved 4,675 researchers from 40 countries, with an average annual growth rate of 102.5%. The highest number of publications was from Japan, followed by China, Italy, and the United States. The largest proportion of studies, 14.0% (n = 123), was contributed by FUDAN UNIV. The studies were published in 274 journals, with CANCERS (n = 53) being the top journal, followed by FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY (n = 51) and HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH (n = 36). The top ten journals accounted for 31.5% of the 879 studies. The most prolific authors were Kudo M (n = 51), Hiraoka A (n = 43), and Tsuji K (n = 38). A total of 1,333 keywords were analyzed, with the present research hotspots being "immune checkpoint inhibitors," "prognosis," and "pd-1." Co-occurrence clustering analysis revealed the top keywords, authors, publications, and journals. Strong collaboration was identified in the field. Conclusion: This scientometric and visual analysis provides a comprehensive summary of the published articles on lenvatinib in HCC during 2014-2022, highlighting the research hotspots, knowledge domain, and frontiers. The results can provide insights into future research directions in this field.

Survival Benefit of Experience of Liver Resection for Advanced Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Sorafenib: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Several studies have shown that liver resection (LR) confers better survival outcomes in intermediate- and advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, the postoperative recurrence rate is high, and little is known about the survival benefits of LR for recurrent HCC patients who have already received systemic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LR on recurrent advanced-stage HCC patients who received sorafenib as a systemic treatment. In this study, 147 advanced HCC patients were enrolled between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019. Two study groups were classified, based on whether they underwent LR or not. To reduce the possible selection bias, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. The primary study endpoint was set as overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was set as progression-free survival (PFS). Our study results revealed that advanced HCC patients who received sorafenib with LR had a longer OS than did those without LR, whether before or after PSM (15.0 months vs. 6.0 months, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31–0.67, p < 0.001; 15.0 months vs. 5.0 months, HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28–0.76, p = 0.001). Similar results were obtained in PFS, before or after PSM (4.14 months vs. 2.60 months, HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40–0.89, p = 0.01; 4.57 months vs. 2.63 months, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34–0.97, p = 0.037). Multivariate analysis showed that the experience of LR was independent of other factors associated with better OS and PFS, whether before or after PSM (p < 0.05). Therefore, advanced HCC patients who have undergone liver resection should be encouraged to continue sorafenib treatment to improve prognosis.

Curcumin-Mediated Resistance to Lenvatinib via EGFR Signaling Pathway in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Lenvatinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor approved as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its response rate is unsatisfactory, primarily due to the acquisition of resistance, which limits its clinical significance for treating patients with HCC. Recent evidence suggests that epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) activation can trigger Lenvatinib-resistance; and is considered an important therapeutic target in HCC. Curcumin, one of the most studied naturally occurring botanicals with robust anti-cancer activity, is also reported to be a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor. In this study, we hypothesized that the anti-EGFR potential of Curcumin might help overcome Lenvatinib resistance in HCC. We established two Lenvatinib-resistant cells and discovered that a combination of Curcumin and Lenvatinib exhibited a synergistic anti-tumor efficacy in the resistant HCC cell lines. In line with previous reports, Lenvatinib-resistant cell lines revealed significant activation of the EGFR, and genomewide transcriptomic profiling analysis identified that the PI3K-AKT pathway was associated with Lenvatinib resistance. The combination treatment with Curcumin and Lenvatinib dramatically suppressed gene and protein expression of the EGFR-PI3K-AKT pathway, suggesting Curcumin overcomes Lenvatinib resistance via inhibition of EGFR. We further validated these findings in tumor spheroids derived from resistant cell lines. In conclusion, we, for the first time, report that Curcumin reverses Lenvatinib resistance in HCC, and that their combination has clinical application potential for adjunctive treatment in HCC.

FDA-Approved Monoclonal Antibodies for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: What Do We Know So Far?

Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an advanced primary liver malignancy with a poor prognosis. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has, to date, approved nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, atezolizumab/bevacizumab, as well as tremelimumab/durvalumab, as first- or second-line monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for unresectable HCC. The present review examines the current state of knowledge, and provides a useful update on the safety and efficacy of these therapeutic agents, thus attempting to define the suitability of each mAb for different patient subgroups.

First-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United States

BACKGROUND

Various therapeutic strategies are available for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line strategies in aHCC patients from the perspective of Chinese and US payers.

DESIGN

A network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness study.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

A NMA was conducted to collect all first-line strategies with aHCC from 1 October 1 2018 until 1 January 2022. The relevant randomized controlled trial literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the last 3 years were searched. The abstracts of meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and American Association for Cancer Research were also reviewed. A Markov model that included three states was developed. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to investigate the uncertainty of the economic evaluation. Scenario analysis was conducted to explore the economic benefits of treatment strategies in low-income populations.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis in China included 1712 patients showed that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, sintilimab combined with bevacizumab, lenvatinib (LEVA), and sorafenib (SORA) added 0.46, 1.25, 0.77, and -1.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, compared with donafenib, resulting in an incremental cost-effective ratio of $85607.88, $12109.27, and $1651.47 per QALY at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $11101.70/QALY. In the United States, only the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SORA was higher that were lower than the WTP threshold ($69375/QALY), and LEVA was the most cost-effective strategy with the ICERs were 25022.13/QALY.

CONCLUSION

The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that LEVA is the favorite choice in the first-line treatment of Chinese aHCC patients and US payers' perspective when the WTP was $11101.70/QALY in China and $69375.0/QALY in the United States.

REGISTRATION

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42021286575.

Characteristics and outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with macrovascular invasion following surgical resection: a meta-analysis of 40 studies and 8,218 patients

Background

Guidelines recommend that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) and/or hepatic vein tumor thrombosis (HVTT) should undergo systemic therapy. However, recent data suggest that surgical resection may be beneficial in selected cases, but outcomes are heterogenous. We aimed to estimate pooled overall survival (OS), recurrence free survival (RFS) and complication rates in HCC patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI) following surgical resection.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two investigators independently searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Nov 10, 2020, without language restrictions, for studies reporting outcomes of adult HCC patients with MVI who underwent liver resection with curative intent.

Results

We screened 8,598 articles and included 40 studies involving 8,218 patients. Among all patients with MVI, the pooled median OS was 14.39 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.99-18.84], 1-year OS was 54.47% (95% CI: 46.12-62.58%) and 3-year OS was 23.20% (95% CI: 16.61-31.42%). Overall, 1- and 3-year RFS were 27.70% (95% CI: 21.00-35.57%) and 10.06% (95% CI: 6.62-15.01%), respectively. Among patients with PVTT, median OS was 20.41 months in those with segmental/2nd order involvement compared to 12.91 months if 1st order branch was involved and 6.41 months if the main trunk was involved. The pooled rate of major complications was 6.17% (95% CI: 3.53-10.56%).

Conclusions

Overall median survival was 14.39 months for HCC patients with MVI following resection. Median survival was higher in PVTT with segmental/2nd order involvement at 20.41 versus 6.41 months if the main trunk was involved.

New Challenges Facing Systemic Therapies of Advanced HCC in the Era of Different First-Line Immunotherapy-Based Combinations

The standard of care of first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently changing with the results of the IMbrave150 trial which are demonstrating superiority of the atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination over sorafenib, modifying this line of treatment for the first time in over 10 years. Recently, other immunotherapy-based combinations (durvalumab-tremelimumab, lenvatinib-pembrolizumab, cabozantinib-atezolizumab, and camrelizumab-rivoceranib) reported results in phase III studies, and might challenge this new standard of care. This revolution will lead to a considerable change in practice, and highlight challenges for future drug development. In this review, we will, firstly, describe results of the different combinations, and discuss the difficulties in selecting the first-line treatment. We will then present the different recommendations about second-line treatment following the first-line immunotherapy-based combination, discussing the rationale for the differences in existing recommendations. We will finally discuss the challenges for future drug development in advanced HCC.

Addition of Y-90 radioembolization increases tumor response and local disease control in hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib

PURPOSE

To compare the treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received sorafenib treatment either alone or combined with radioembolization (RE).

METHODS

Follow-up images of the patients treated within a multicenter phase II trial (SORAMIC) were assessed by mRECIST. A total of 177 patients (73 combination arm [RE + sorafenib] and 104 sorafenib arm) were included in this post-hoc analysis. Response and progression characteristics were compared between treatment arms. Survival analyses were done to compare PFS and post-progression survival between treatment arms. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to compare survival with factors known to influence PFS in patients with HCC.

RESULTS

The combination arm had significantly higher objective response rate (61.6% vs. 29.8%, p < 0.001), complete response rate (13.7% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.022), and a trend for higher disease control rate (79.2% vs. 72.1%, p = 0.075). Progression was encountered in 116 (65.5%) patients and was more common in the sorafenib arm (75% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.001). PFS (median 8.9 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.022) and hepatic PFS were significantly better in the combination arm (9.0 vs. 5.7 months, p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis confirmed the treatment arm as an independent predictor of PFS.

CONCLUSION

In advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib, combination with RE has an additive anticancer effect on sorafenib treatment resulting in a higher and longer tumor response. However, the enhanced response did not translate into prolonged survival. Better patient selection and superselective treatment could improve outcomes after combination therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Immunotherapy vs. Paclitaxel or Docetaxel Chemotherapy as Second-Line Therapy in Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in China

This study aimed to evaluate and compare nivolumab's cost-effectiveness with chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. To this end, the researchers utilized a partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health stages. The characteristics of the patients used as inclusion and exclusion criteria in this model were the same as those used for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the ATTRACTION-3 study. The ATTRACTION-3 trial, which took place between January 7, 2016 and November 12, 2018, also yielded important clinical data. Data on medical and economic preferences were collected from real-world clinical practices. Costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for the two therapy options. The model uncertainty was investigated using a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. When compared to chemotherapy, nivolumab was linked with an increase of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years with an increased cost of US$ 36,956.81 per patient in the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 419 patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the deterministic sensitivity analysis was US$ 132,029.46/quality-adjusted life year, with a 48.02% probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$ 132,029.22/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained greater than US$ 80,000/quality-adjusted life year in the deterministic sensitivity analyses. To be more cost-effective and remain below the threshold of 37,653 US$/quality-adjusted life year, which the Chinese population can afford, nivolumab's price would have to be lowered sharply by 53.50%. Nivolumab is clinically beneficial but not cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy. A substantial reduction in nivolumab's drug acquisition cost would be necessary to make it cost-effective for immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: From clinical trials to real-world data and future advances

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-associated mortality worldwide. HCC is an inflammation-associated immunogenic cancer that frequently arises in chronically inflamed livers. Advanced HCC is managed with systemic therapies; the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) sorafenib has been used in 1st-line setting since 2007. Immunotherapies have emerged as promising treatments across solid tumors including HCC for which immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are licensed in 1st- and 2nd-line treatment setting. The treatment field of advanced HCC is continuously evolving. Several clinical trials are investigating novel ICI candidates as well as new ICI regimens in combination with other therapeutic modalities including systemic agents, such as other ICIs, TKIs, and anti-angiogenics. Novel immunotherapies including adoptive cell transfer, vaccine-based approaches, and virotherapy are also being brought to the fore. Yet, despite advances, several challenges persist. Lack of real-world data on the use of immunotherapy for advanced HCC in patients outside of clinical trials constitutes a main limitation hindering the breadth of application and generalizability of data to this larger and more diverse patient cohort. Consequently, issues encountered in real-world practice include patient ineligibly for immunotherapy because of contraindications, comorbidities, or poor performance status; lack of response, efficacy, and safety data; and cost-effectiveness. Further real-world data from high-quality large prospective cohort studies of immunotherapy in patients with advanced HCC is mandated to aid evidence-based clinical decision-making. This review provides a critical and comprehensive overview of clinical trials and real-world data of immunotherapy for HCC, with a focus on ICIs, as well as novel immunotherapy strategies underway.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Five Systemic Treatments for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis

Background and Objective

Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is the main histological subtype of liver cancer and causes a great disease burden in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line systemic treatments newly approved in the Chinese market for the treatment of uHCC, namely, sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab (D + A), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (T + A) from the perspective of China's healthcare system, to provide a basis for decision-making.

Methods

We constructed a network meta-analysis of 4 clinical trials and used fractional polynomial models to indirectly compare the effectiveness of treatments. The partitioned survival model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,521 (3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China) per QALY. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness. To test the effect of active treatment duration on the conclusions, we performed a scenario analysis.

Results

Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, D + A, and T + A regimens, it yielded an increase of 0.25, 0.30, 0.95, and 1.46 life-years, respectively. Correspondingly, these four therapies yielded an additional 0.16, 0.19, 0.51, and 0.86 QALYs and all four ICERs, $40,667.92/QALY gained, $27,630.63/QALY gained, $51,877.36/QALY gained, and $130,508.44/QALY gained, were higher than $33,521 except for donafenib. T + A was the most effective treatment and donafenib was the most economical option. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results showed that the base-case analysis was highly reliable.

Conclusion

Although combination therapy could greatly improve patients with uHCC survival benefits, under the current WTP, donafenib is still the most economical option.

Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Updates and Outlook

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has emerged the culprit of cancer-related mortality worldwide with its dismal prognosis climbing. In recent years, ground-breaking progress has been made in systemic therapy for HCC. Targeted therapy based on specific signaling molecules, including sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab, has been widely used for advanced HCC (aHCC). Immunotherapies such as pembrolizumab and nivolumab greatly improve the survival of aHCC patients. More recently, synergistic combination therapy has boosted first-line (atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab) and second-line (ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab) therapeutic modalities for aHCC. This review aims to summarize recent updates of systemic therapy relying on the biological mechanisms of HCC, particularly highlighting the approved agents for aHCC. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy, as well as a combination with locoregional therapies (LRTs), are also discussed. Additionally, we describe the promising effect of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as systemic therapy on HCC. In this setting, the challenges and future directions of systemic therapy for HCC are also explored.

Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Biosimilar Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: The ORIENT-32 clinical trial revealed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar significantly improved the median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with sorafenib. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the Chinese perspective of healthcare system.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with three mutual health states was constructed to evaluate the economic outcome of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar. The model cycle was 21 days, and the simulation time horizon was a lifetime. The output parameters of the model were the total cost, life-year (LY), quality-adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

Results: The base-case results found that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar provided an improvement of 1.27 QALYs and 1.84 LYs compared with sorafenib, and the ICER was $23,352/QALY. The hazard ratio for OS had the greatest influence on the ICER. The probability of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was 85% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $30,552/QALY.

Conclusion: The findings of this analysis suggested that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was a cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Lenvatinib Plus Camrelizumab vs. Lenvatinib Monotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Combining an antiangiogenic agent with an anti-PD-1 agent is a promising strategy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Aims

To explore the effectiveness and tolerability of lenvatinib plus camrelizumab vs. lenvatinib monotherapy as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients with unresectable HCC treated with oral lenvatinib 8 mg daily and intravenous camrelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (L+C group) or lenvatinib 12 mg or 8 mg daily (L group) in four Chinese centers between September 2018 and February 2020. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. The outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), 1-year OS rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.

Results

By March 31, 2021, 92 patients were finally included, with 48 and 44 in the L+C and L groups, respectively. ORR was significantly higher in the L+C group than in the L group (RECIST 1.1: 37.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.009; mRECIST: 41.7% vs. 20.5%, P=0.029). Median OS and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 13.9 (13.3-18.3) months in the L group and not reached in the L+C group (P=0.015). The 1-year survival rate was 79.2% and 56.8% in the L+C and L groups, respectively. Median PFS was 10.3 (6.6-14.0) months and 7.5 (5.7-9.3) months in the L+C and L groups, respectively (P=0.0098). Combined therapy vs. monotherapy was independently associated with a prolonged OS (hazard ratio=0.380, 95% CI=: 0.196-0.739, P=0.004) and a prolonged PFS (hazard ratio=0.454, 95%CI=0.282-0.731, P=0.001). The safety profile was comparable between the two groups. The most common adverse event in the L+C and L groups was loss of appetite (41.7% vs. 40.9%, P=0.941). Three patients in the L+C group and two in the L group terminated treatment owing to adverse events.

Conclusion

First-line lenvatinib plus camrelizumab showed better effectiveness than lenvatinib alone in patients with unresectable HCC.

Durvalumab consolidation therapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer after concurrent chemoradiation: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in post-chemoradiotherapy patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The study developed a five-health state Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab consolidation therapy in post-chemoradiotherapy patients based on the PACIFIC clinical trial. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Durvalumab consolidation therapy provided an additional 1.22 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of $24,397 compared to no consolidation therapy in unselected patients. Durvalumab consolidation therapy was cost-effective as it yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $20,000 per QALY gained at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,494 per QALY. In the patient subgroup with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%), durvalumab was associated with an ICER of $33,058/QALY, resulting in a slight skewing away from the given cost-effectiveness threshold. The sensitivity analysis showed that ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of durvalumab, the cost of pembrolizumab, and the body weight of patients, regardless of PD-L1 expression selection.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab consolidation therapy is likely to be cost-effective in China, which indicates that expensive immunotherapies can gain clinical benefits at a justifiable cost in developing countries as well.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma

IMPORTANCE

In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Short-Course Radiation Plus Temozolomide for the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Among Elderly Patients in China and the United States

Background: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a fatal type of brain tumor with a high incidence among elderly people. Temozolomide (TMZ) has proven to be an effective chemotherapeutic agent with significant survival benefits. This study aimed to evaluate the economic outcomes of radiotherapy (RT) and TMZ for the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM in elderly people in the United States (US) and China.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed for RT plus TMZ and RT alone among patients with methylated and unmethylated tumor status. Base case calculations and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2021 US dollars [$] and Chinese Yuan Renminbi [¥]), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.

Results: RT plus TMZ was found to be associated with significantly higher costs and QALYs in all groups. Only US patients with methylated status receiving RT plus TMZ had an ICER ($89358.51) less than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100000 per QALY gained when compared with receiving RT alone. When the WTP threshold ranged from $100000 to $150000 from the US perspective, the probability of RT plus TMZ being cost-effective increased from 80.5 to 99.8%. The cost of TMZ must be lower than ¥120 per 20 mg for RT plus TMZ to be cost-effective among patients with methylated tumor status in China.

Conclusion: RT plus TMZ was not cost-effective in China, and a reduction in the TMZ price was justified. However, it is highly likely to be cost-effective for patients with methylated tumor status in the US.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction: The treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has radically changed after the approval of the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment. A strong preclinical rationale exists to support the combination of bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody (mAb), and atezolizumab, an anti-programmed death ligand 1 mAb. The efficacy of the combination was first assessed in the phase Ib GO30140 study, and the combination was then proven superior to the prior standard of care, sorafenib, in the phase III IMbrave150 trial.Areas covered: This article focuses on the mechanism of action of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, their synergistic action, and the two clinical trials leading to approval. We also collected the body of post-hoc analyses and meta-analyses to help guide the decision-making process in terms of patient selection and subsequent treatments.Expert opinion: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab are the current standard of care for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC and treatment-naïve patient should be treated with the combination, unless contraindications to the drugs. Since all the available agents for further lines of treatment have been approved for sorafenib-pretreated patients, prospective trials, post-hoc analyses, and real-world data assessing valid treatment sequencing are strongly needed.