Cost-effectiveness and Budgetary Consequence Analysis of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy vs No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Context of the US Health Care System

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of rearranged during transfection fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although selpercatinib has shown clinical benefits for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), its cost-effectiveness requires further evaluation.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of RET fusion-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the United States (US) payer.

METHOD

A partitioned survival model was developed based on data from the LIBRETTO-431 trial. Cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from database data or published literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Selpercatinib increased QALYs in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC by 0.90 compared to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, with an additional cost of $542,517.45, resulting in an ICER of $603,286.49/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($150,000) in the US. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of progressed disease, the utility of progression-free survival, the price of selpercatinib, the discount, the price of pemetrexed, and the price of pembrolizumab had the greatest influence on the cost- effectiveness analysis process. In the PSA, 99.9% of the scatter points were distributed above the US WTP threshold of $150,000.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the US payer, selpercatinib is not cost-effective compared to chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for first-line treatment in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.

Durvalumab not cost-effective with current pricing strategies for stage III NSCLC: The drug remains inaccessible to many patients for whom it is indicated as a standard of care after chemoradiation

This news section offers Cancer readers timely information on events, public policy analysis, topical issues, and personalities. In this issue, durvalumab remains inaccessible to many patients for whom it is indicated as a standard of care after chemoradiation. In addition, a study assesses a fixed‐duration combination regimen of obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, and venetoclax for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multitargeted therapy is safe and leads to durable remission of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma.

Cost-effectiveness of consolidation durvalumab for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab as a treatment option for patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from healthcare and partial societal perspectives in Vietnam.

METHOD

A lifetime partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with consolidation durvalumab in comparison with the standard of care alone. Local costs and utilities were incorporated into the model. In the base-case analysis, no discount was applied to the acquisition cost of durvalumab. Scenario-based, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed that the intervention resulted in an increase of 1.38 life years or 1.08 QALYs for patients, but the intervention was not deemed cost-effective from either perspective in the base-case analysis. However, with a 70% reduction in the durvalumab acquisition cost, the intervention was observed to be cost-effective when evaluated from a healthcare perspective and when examining the undiscounted results from a partial societal standpoint.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of inoperable stage III NSCLC in Vietnam for various scenarios. The intervention was not cost-effective at full acquisition cost, but it is important to acknowledge that cost-effectiveness arguments alone cannot solely guide decision-makers in Vietnam; other criteria, such as budget impact and ethical concerns, are crucial factors to consider in decision-making processes.

Budget impact analysis of durvalumab consolidation therapy vs no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the Chilean health care system

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab, used as consolidation immunotherapy, has shown to improve survival in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who respond to chemoradiotherapy, based on the most recent follow-up of PACIFIC. The Chilean healthcare system provides access to certain immunotherapies for this condition. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of durvalumab versus standard of care in the context of the Chilean healthcare system.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A partitioned survival model was adapted to compare two strategies: durvalumab as consolidation therapy and standard of care for treating stage III NSCLC. The number of patients eligible for treatment was estimated using published incidence data and modeled for a 5-year time horizon. Model inputs were based on published literature, and the duration of treatment was estimated using survival curves obtained from PACIFIC. Costs were estimated in Chilean pesos (CLP) and converted to USD dollars using an exchange rate of USD 1  =  CLP 827. Scenario analyses were performed to assess different subsequent therapy splits, variations in the target population and dosage of durvalumab.

RESULTS

Durvalumab uptake projected total costs ranging from USD 1.27 in Year 1 to 8.5 million in Year 5 from the public perspective. From the private perspective, the budget impact for the first year is USD 1.3 million to USD 3 million for 2028. This difference relies mostly on the lower number of patients treated. Both perspectives anticipated cost savings over the time horizon through reduced monitoring, adverse events, and end-of-life expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the inclusion of Durvalumab for NSCLC in Chile represents an investment in the Chilean health system. The incremental costs align with clinical benefits and potential savings in healthcare resource utilization. However, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to evaluate its economic value thoroughly.

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.

International Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Importance

Standard of care for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with durvalumab. However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in various health systems.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from 4 international payer perspectives (US, Brazil, Singapore, and Spain).

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was designed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of placebo, using 5-year outcomes data from the PACIFIC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Individual patient data were extracted from the PACIFIC, KEYNOTE-189, ADAURA, ALEX, and REVEL randomized clinical trials to develop a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy over a 10-year time horizon. Direct costs, adverse events, and patient characteristics were based on country-specific payer perspectives and demographic characteristics. The study was conducted from June 1, 2022, through December 27, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds ([data reported in US$] US: $150 000 per QALY; Brazil: $22 251 per QALY; Singapore: $55 288 per QALY, and Spain: $107 069 per QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameters of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed.

Results

The US base-case model found that treatment with durvalumab was associated with an increased cost of $114 394 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $228 788 per QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, according to base-case models, were $141 146 for Brazil, $153 461 for Singapore, and $125 193 for Spain. Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improved cost-effectiveness in Singapore, with an ICER of $45 164. The model was most sensitive to the utility of durvalumab.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC, the therapy was found to be cost-prohibitive from the perspective of various international payers according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY. The findings of the study suggest that discounted durvalumab acquisition costs, as possible in Singapore, might improve cost-effectiveness globally.

Economic evaluation of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy regimen for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

Cemiplimab, a novel PD-1 inhibitor, exhibits significant antitumor activity against advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the cost-effectiveness of this drug for the treatment remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced NSCLC, from the perspective of the United States payer.

METHODS

A partitioned survival approach was developed to project the disease progression of NSCLC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data were obtained from the EMPOWER lung 3 trial and extrapolated to estimate long-term survival outcomes. Direct medical costs and utility data were collected. The primary outcome measure, the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy regimen. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the ICUR for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was estimated to be $395,593.8 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). OWSA revealed that the results were sensitive to Hazard ratio value, utility of PFS, and cost of cemiplimab. PSA demonstrated that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy exhibited 0% probability of cost-effectiveness.In hypothetical scenario analysis, the ICUR of two regimens was $188.803.3/QALY. OWSA revealed that the results were sensitive to the discount rate, utility, and cost of cemiplimab. PSA indicated that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy achieved at least an 11.5% probability of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, at its current price, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy regimen is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy alone for advanced NSCLC patients, based on a threshold of $150,000 per QALY, from the perspective of the US payer.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields plus standard therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressed after platinum-based therapy in the United States

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

The Best Supportive Care in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents most lung cancer cases, and approximately one-third of patients present with stage III disease at diagnosis. As multiple treatment plans can be adopted for these patients depending on tumor size and nodal staging, stage III NSCLC management is challenging. Over the past decades, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have been implemented in healthcare services to coordinate actions among the different health care professionals involved in cancer care. The aim of this review was to discuss real-world evidence of the impact of MDTs on stage III NSCLC management, survival, and quality of life. Here, we performed a literature review to investigate the role of nutrition and navigational nursing in NSCLC care and the influence of MDTs in the choice of treatment plans, including immunotherapy consolidation, and in the management of chemotherapy and radiotherapy-related adverse events. We also performed a mapping review to identify gaps in the implementation of cancer care MDTs in healthcare services around the world.

Integration analysis using bioinformatics and experimental validation on the clinical and biological significance of TSLP in cancers

Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) has significantly impacted the development and progression of various neoplastic disorders. To comprehensively evaluate the diverse significance of TSLP in malignant tumors, we first integrative analyze the TSLP expression level in paired and unpaired pan-cancer tissue and cell line, compared against the normal tissue. The correlation between TSLP expression, molecular subtypes, immune subtypes, diagnostic value, and prognostic value in pan-cancer was also investigated. We then explored the impact of TSLP expression on multifaced immune cell infiltration and subsequent clinical outcomes in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients. and conducted cellular experiments to functionally examine the effect of TSLP on cell proliferation, apoptosis, cell cycle, migration, and invasion in LUAD. The anti-neoplastic mechanism of TSLP was further investigated by qRT-PCR and western blotting. Our findings reveal that TSLP expression is abnormally low in various cancers compared to normal tissue and is associated with different molecular and immune subtypes of cancers. Moreover, ROC and survival analysis results suggest that TSLP expression is correlated with the diagnostic, prognostic, clinical features, and immune cells of LUAD patients. Cell experiments showed that overexpression of TSLP elicited a significant reduction in LUAD cell viability, promoted cell apoptosis, impeded cell cycle progression in the G2/M phase, and inhibited cell migration and invasion. In addition, TSLP inhibited LUAD progression through the JAK1/STAT3 signaling pathway. Therefore, targeting TSLP shows potential as a therapeutic strategy for pan-cancer, particularly for LUAD, and as a biomarker for predicting the prognosis of this malignancy.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with adjuvant pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Introduction

Perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Methods

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

During a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding durvalumab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer based on the TOPAZ-1 trial

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin has a significant clinical benefit for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, the high price of durvalumab warrants an exploration of the economics.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin in first-line therapy of advanced BTC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

According to the TOPAZ-1 trial, a three-state Markov model was built by the TreeAge Pro 2022 software. The total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. The triple 2021 Chinese per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $37,663.26/QALY was used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Outputs were analyzed for two scenarios with and without a durvalumab drug charity assistance policy. In the scenario analysis, the base-case model was run multiple times with different prices of durvalumab to determine the effect on the ICER. Moreover, the robustness of the model was tested through sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, durvalumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.12 QALY and an incremental cost of $18,555.19, the ICER was $159,644.70/QALY under the situation of charity assistance, and the ICER was $696,571.11/QALY without charity assistance, both exceeding the WTP threshold in China. The scenario analysis demonstrated that when the price of durvalumab fell by more than 94.2% to less than $0.33/mg, durvalumab plus chemotherapy will be more economical compared with chemotherapy alone under the situation of no charity assistance. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of durvalumab had the greatest influence on the ICERs, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that durvalumab plus chemotherapy was impossible to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold whether the charity assistance was available or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin was not cost-effective for advanced BTC regardless of receiving and not receiving charitable assistance.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer

Objective

The TOPAZ-1 trial reported a significant survival benefit of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, no studies have evaluated the economics of this treatment option. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of durvalumab plus chemotherapy compared to placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

Based on clinical data from the TOPAZ-1 trial, a Markov model was developed to simulate 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with BTC. The treatment group received durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the control group received placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary outcomes analyzed included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty in the analysis results was assessed by sensitivity analysis.

Results

For US payers, the placebo plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $56,157.05 and a utility of 1.10 QALYs, while the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $217,069.25, a utility of 1.52 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $381,864.39/QALY. For Chinese payers, the ICER of durvalumab plus chemotherapy group was $367,608.51/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was most sensitive to the price of durvalumab. For US and Chinese payers, under the respective willing to pay thresholds, the likelihood of the durvalumab plus chemotherapy arm being cost-effective was 0%.

Conclusions

Both in China and in the US, durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of BTC compared with chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Researchers have not simultaneously compared the cost-effectiveness of six immunotherapies with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness across different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels.

METHODS

A Markov model with lifetime horizon was created for seven regimens: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembro-chemo), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo-ipi), nivolumab, ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (nivo-ipi-chemo), atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-chemo), atezolizumab, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-beva-chemo), single-agent pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy alone. Input parameters were derived from trial data, a network meta-analysis, and other literature. We conducted the analysis from the perspective of US health care sector.

RESULTS

For all patients without considering PD-L1 expression, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembro-chemo versus chemotherapy was $183,299 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The preferred regimens based on ICERs differed by PD-L1 levels. For patients with PD-L1 ≥50%, pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy and pembro-chemo versus pembrolizumab resulted in ICERs of $96,189 and $198,913 per QALY, respectively. The other strategies were dominated. For patients with PD-L1 of 1%-49%, the ICER of pembro-chemo comparing to chemotherapy was $218,159 per QALY. The other regimens were dominated by pembro-chemo. For patients with PD-L1 <1%, nivo-ipi versus chemotherapy and nivo-ipi-chemo versus nivo-ipi resulted in ICERs of $161,277 and $881,975 per QALY, and the other regimens were dominated strategies. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, pembrolizumab had 87% and pembro-chemo had 1% probabilities being cost-effective in patients with PD-L1 ≥50% and 1%-49%, respectively. Nivo-ipi had a 34% probability being cost-effective in patients with PD-L1 <1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The PD-L1 level should be incorporated into treatment decision-making. Our findings suggest that first-line pembrolizumab, pembro-chemo, and nivo-ipi are the preferred strategies for patients with PD-L1 ≥50%, 1%-49%, and <1%, respectively.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 treatment paths, seven first-line and three second-line treatments for Chinese patients with advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A sequential model

Background

A total of 11 treatment sequences for advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer are recommended by Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines, consisting of seven first-line and three second-line treatments. Five of these treatments were newly approved in China between 2021 and 2022. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

Network meta-analysis with non-proportional hazards was used to calculate the relative efficacy between interventions. A sequential model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences with first-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy (SC) with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, sintilimab, sugemalimab or pembrolizumab, followed by second-line docetaxel, tislelizumab or nivolumab. SC and docetaxel were used as comparators for first-line and second-line treatments, respectively. QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, respectively. Cost-effective threshold was set as USD 19,091. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the best first-line and second-line therapy.

Results

Pembrolizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (PED) was the most effective treatment sequence. QALYs for patients received SC, nedaplatin + SC, tislelizumab + SC, sintilimab + SC, camrelizumab + SC, sugemalimab + SC, pembrolizumab + SC followed by docetaxel were 0.866, 0.906, 1.179, 1.266, 1.179, 1.266, 1.603, 1.721, 1.807; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by tislelizumab were 1.283, 1.301; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by nivolumab were 1.353, 1.389. Camrelizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (CAD) was the most cost-effective. Compared to SC with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, or sintilimab followed by docetaxel, ICERs of CAD were USD 12,276, 13,210, 6,974, 9,421/QALY, respectively. Compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by tislelizumab, the ICERs of CAD were USD 4,183, 2,804/QALY; CAD was dominant compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by nivolumab; The ICER of sugemalimab + SC followed by docetaxel and PED were USD 522,023, 481,639/QALY compared with CAD. Pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC were the most effective and cost-effective first-line options, respectively; tislelizumab was the most effective and cost-effective second-line therapy. Tislelizumab used in second-line was more effective than first-line, no significant differences between their cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed robustness of the results.

Conclusions

PED and CAD are the most effective and cost-effective treatment sequence, respectively; pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC are the most effective and cost-effective first-line choice, respectively; tislelizumab is the most effective and cost-effective second-line choice.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

Anlotinib Hydrochloride and PD-1 Blockade as a Salvage Second-Line Treatment in Patients with Progress of Local Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Half a Year After Standard Treatment

Purpose

As for local advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), synchronous radiotherapy and chemotherapy is the standard treatment mode. But for patients with progress in half a year, which means the second-line chemotherapy effect is not ideal for them. We observed the efficacy and safety of anlotinib hydrochloride combined with PD-1 blockade as the second-line treatment for those patients in this trial.

Patients and Methods

From January 2018 to December 2019, 57 patients with the progress of local advanced NSCLC treated with anlotinib plus PD-1 blockade until disease progression or intolerance as a result of adverse events. Patients have been assessed using computed tomography prior to treatment and during follow-up every 2 months until disease progression or death. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Survival curves were created using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

57 patients were enrolled. The median age was 64 years, and 61.4% of the patients were men. The ORR was 50.9% with a median OS time of 14 months and the 1-year OS rates and PFS rates were 81.8% and 33.3%, respectively. The patients with squamous cell carcinoma, no brain or liver metastases had longer PFS than patients with liver metastasis. When the PFS was calculated from the time of second treatment, the median PFS was 9 months. Most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1-3, one drug-related death was noted.

Conclusion

The expected outcome of this study is that anlotinib combined with PD-1 blockade has tolerable toxicity and better ORR, OS than second-line chemotherapy. The results may indicate additional treatment options for patients with progress of local advance NSCLC in half a year after standard treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the new oncological drug durvalumab in Italian patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer

Background

The monoclonal antibody durvalumab, an immune‐checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antiprogrammed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1), is available for unresectable stage III NSCLC patients as consolidation therapy following induction chemoradiotherapy, with very promising overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survial (PFS) results in registration trials. The purpose of this study was to provide policymakers with an estimate of the cost‐effectiveness of durvalumab in the treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

The study developed a Markov model covering a 5‐year period to compare costs and outcomes of treating PD‐L1 positive patients with or without durvalumab. We conducted a series of sensitivity analyses (Tornado analysis and Monte Carlo simulation) by varying some parameters to assess the robustness of our model and identify the parameters with the greatest impact on cost‐effectiveness.

Results

Prior to the release of durvalumab, the management of NSCLC over a 5‐year period cost €33 317 per patient, with an average life expectancy of 2.01 years. After the introduction of the drug, this increased to €37 317 per patient, with an average life expectancy of 2.13 years. Treatment with durvalumab led to an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €35 526 per year. OS is the variable that contributes the most to the variability of the ICER.

Conclusions

The study observed that durvalumab is a cost‐effective treatment option for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as a maintenance treatment for patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage Ⅲ nsclc in china

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with Best supportive care (BSC) after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer from healthcare system perspective in China.

Methods

A dynamic state transition model was adopted to simulate life time, direct medical costs and QALYs. In the base case scenario, for patients with unresectable, stage Ⅲ non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy, the treatment group would use durvalumab whereas the control group would use BSC. Clinical data and health utility were derived from the patient-level data of Asian ethnicity in the PACIFIC trial. Cost of drug acquisition, follow-up, medical service, inspection, terminal care and adverse event treatment were considered in this model. The cost of durvalumab was calculated based on retail prices and Patient Assistance Program.

Results

In the base case, the durvalumab group yielded an additional 2.60 LYs and 2.37QALYs (discounted), causing an additional cost of 0.459 million RMB and 0.109 million RMB without and with PAP, so the ICER was 193,898 RMB/QALY and 46,093.12 RMB/QALY respectively.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that durvalumab can improve the survival of patients with unresectable, stage Ⅲ non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy and would be a cost-effective option compared with BSC at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 212676 RMB (three times GDP per capita of China in 2019).

Uptake of Adjuvant Durvalumab After Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy for Stage III Nonsmall-cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

The addition of adjuvant durvalumab improves overall survival in locally advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with definitive chemoradiation, but the real-world uptake of adjuvant durvalumab is unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiation from January 2018 to October 2020 from a statewide radiation oncology quality consortium, representing a mix of community (n=22 centers) and academic (n=5) across the state of Michigan. Use of adjuvant durvalumab was ascertained at the time of routine 3-month or 6-month follow-up after completion of chemoradiation.

RESULTS

Of 421 patients with stage III NSCLC who completed chemoradiation, 322 (76.5%) initiated adjuvant durvalumab. The percentage of patients initiating adjuvant durvalumab increased over time from 66% early in the study period to 92% at the end of the study period. There was substantial heterogeneity by treatment center, ranging from 53% to 90%. In multivariable logistic regression, independent predictors of durvalumab initiation included more recent month (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05 per month, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.08, P=0.003), lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score (OR: 4.02 for ECOG 0 vs. 2+, 95% CI: 1.67-9.64, P=0.002), and a trend toward significance for female sex (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.98-2.82, P=0.06).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant durvalumab for stage III NSCLC treated with definitive chemoradiation was rapidly and successfully incorporated into clinical care across a range of community and academic settings in the state of Michigan, with over 90% of potentially eligible patients starting durvalumab in more recent months.

Durvalumab as Consolidation Therapy in Post-Multimodal Interventional Treatment for Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: A Preliminary Study

With 2.1 million unique cases of lung tumors and 1.8 million mortalities in China, advanced solid tumors continue to be the primary source of cancer mortality rates. Nearly two-thirds of lung cancer individuals display advanced-stage tumors at the time of testing, with a 5-year survival ratio of 7%. People with advanced solid tumors have an appalling outcome, with a 5-year total survival ratio of roughly 15%. Immunotherapy inhibitors, like those for programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), have ushered in a novel period in cancer diagnosis and therapy. Three resistant medications were authorized for advanced solid tumors: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab. Durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 antigen, is currently being researched. Durvalumab's pharmacologic characteristics, clinical efficacy, and security as consolidation therapy in post-multimodal interventional therapies for people with advanced solid tumors are discussed in this paper. We have also shared details of two patients who were identified with advanced solid tumors and were provided with durvalumab medication. The performance measures like Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS), and Overall Response Rate (ORR) are also contrasted for different antibodies. The research findings imply that durvalumab consolidation therapy is a cost-efficient therapy, while health policymakers should address the financial consequences.

Cost Effectiveness of Durvalumab in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: 4-Year Survival Update and Model Validation from a UK Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND

In the phase III PACIFIC study, durvalumab improved survival versus placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease had not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The appraisal by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) included a cost-effectiveness analysis based on an early data readout from PACIFIC [March 2018 data cut-off (DCO); median follow-up duration 25.2 months; range 0.2-43.1]. Uncertainties regarding long-term survival outcomes with durvalumab led to some challenges in estimating the cost effectiveness of this therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Here, we validate the survival extrapolations used in the original company base-case analysis by benchmarking them against updated survival data from the 4-year follow-up analysis of PACIFIC (i.e. approximately 4 years after the last patient was randomised; March 2020 DCO; median follow-up duration 34.2 months; range 0.2-64.9). Moreover, we update the original analysis with these more mature survival data to examine the consistency of key economic outputs with the original analysis.

METHODS

The original analysis used a semi-Markov (state-transition) approach and was based on patients whose tumours expressed programmed cell death-ligand 1 on ≥ 1% of cells (to reflect the European licence for durvalumab). We benchmarked the survival extrapolations used in the original company base-case analysis against survival data from the 4-year follow-up of PACIFIC and updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with these more mature survival data. Early deaths avoided by the adoption of durvalumab into the UK Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) in March 2019 were estimated using the 4-year follow-up survival data and an assumed uptake of 125 patients/year (lower estimate) and 367 patients/year (higher estimate).

RESULTS

The original company base-case analysis had a good visual fit with the observed overall survival (OS) distribution for the durvalumab arm and accurately predicted the 48-month OS rate (predicted 55%; observed 55%); by comparison, the fit was less precise for the placebo arm, for which the analysis underestimated the 48-month OS rate (predicted 32%; observed 38%). In the updated company base-case analysis, durvalumab yielded 2.51 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (- 0.43 vs. the original company base-case analysis), corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £22,665/QALY (+£3298 vs. the original analysis), which falls within the upper bound of NICE's willingness-to-pay threshold (£30,000/QALY gained). We estimate that between 31 and 91 early patient deaths may have been avoided by the adoption of durvalumab into the CDF.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reinforce the patient benefit observed with durvalumab in unresectable stage III NSCLC, support the routine use and cost effectiveness of this therapy, and demonstrate how appropriate modelling can inform the early adoption of therapies by payers to achieve patient benefit.

Cost-effectiveness and health impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for never smokers in Japan and the United States: a modelling study

BACKGROUND

Never smokers in Asia have a higher incidence of lung cancer than in Europe and North America. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for never smokers in Japan and the United States.

METHODS

We developed a state-transition model for three strategies: LDCT, chest X-ray (CXR), and no screening, using a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. Main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life expectancy life-years (LYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and deaths from lung cancer. The willingness-to-pay level was US$100,000 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

LDCT yielded the greatest benefits with the lowest cost in Japan, but the ICERs of LDCT compared with CXR were US$3,001,304 per QALY gained for American men and US$2,097,969 per QALY gained for American women. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the incidence of lung cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LDCT was cost-effective 99.3-99.7% for Japanese, no screening was cost-effective 77.7% for American men, and CXR was cost-effective 93.2% for American women. Compared with CXR, LDCT has the cumulative lifetime potential for 60-year-old Japanese to save US$117 billion, increase 2,339,349 QALYs and 3,020,102 LYs, and reduce 224,749 deaths, and the potential for 60-year-old Americans to cost US$120 billion, increase 48,651 QALYs and 67,988 LYs, and reduce 2,309 deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This modelling study suggests that LDCT screening for never smokers has the greatest benefits and cost savings in Japan, but is not cost-effective in the United States. Assessing the risk of lung cancer in never smokers is important for introducing population-based LDCT screening.

A Promising Treatment Strategy for Lung Cancer: A Combination of Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy

Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide despite advances in treatment. In the past few decades, radiotherapy has achieved outstanding technical advances and is being widely used as a definitive, prophylactic, or palliative treatment of patients with lung cancer. The anti-tumor effects of radiotherapy are considered to result in DNA damage in cancer cells. Moreover, recent evidence has demonstrated another advantage of radiotherapy: the induction of anti-tumor immune responses, which play an essential role in cancer control. In contrast, radiotherapy induces an immunosuppressive response. These conflicting reactions after radiotherapy suggest that maximizing immune response to radiotherapy by combining immunotherapy has potential to achieve more effective anti-tumor response than using each alone. Immune checkpoint molecules, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4, programmed cell death-1/programmed death-ligand 1, and their inhibitors, have attracted significant attention for overcoming the immunosuppressive conditions in patients with cancer. Therefore, the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and radiotherapy is promising. Emerging preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the rationale for these combination strategies. In this review, we outlined evidence suggesting that combination of radiotherapy, including particle therapy using protons and carbon ions, with immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment could be a promising treatment strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab With and Without Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (N+I+chemotherapy) improve overall survival and progression-free survival for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet researchers have not concomitantly compared the cost-effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone.

Materials and methods

Using outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA phase 3 randomized trials, we developed a Markov model with lifetime horizon to compare the costs and effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy from the U.S. health care sector perspective. Subgroup analysis by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥1% and <1%) and probabilistic analysis were performed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of N+I versus chemotherapy was $239,072 per QALY, and $838,198 per QALY for N+I+chemotherapy versus N+I. The ICER of N+I versus chemotherapy was $246,584 per QALY for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and $185,620 per QALY for those with PD-L1 < 1%. In probabilistic analysis, N+I had a 2.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The probability was 0.4% for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and 10.6% for patients with PD-L1 < 1%.

Conclusion

First-line N+I or N+I+chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC was not cost-effective regardless of PD-L1 expression levels from the U.S. health care sector perspective.

Immunotherapy for Stage III NSCLC: Durvalumab and Beyond

Immunocheckpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have altered the treatment landscape of a wide range of malignancies, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This class of agents inhibits the interaction between PD1 and PDL1, and was shown to be efficacious in the landmark PACIFIC trial with 1 year of maintenance durvalumab (anti-PDL1 antibody). This trial demonstrated that its use as a consolidation treatment given after definitive chemoradiotherapy improved progression free survival and overall survival compared to standard-of-care treatment. In this review, we discuss both clinical trial and real-world data that have been published since PACIFIC that support the use of durvalumab for stage III unresectable NSCLC. In addition, we highlight specific populations that may require special considerations for the use of durvalumab in this setting, such as oncogene-addicted NSCLC, the toxicity of immunotherapy, and future directions in ICI research in stage III NSCLC.

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.

First-Line Durvalumab in Addition to Etoposide and Platinum for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A U.S.-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The latest published CASPIAN trial demonstrated that adding durvalumab to etoposide and platinum (EP) improved survival dramatically for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Considering the high cost of durvalumab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP (DEP) in the first-line setting for treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC from the U.S. payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a three-state Markov model to simulate the disease course and source consumption of ES-SCLC over a lifetime horizon. Pseudo-individual patient-level data were generated from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. Direct medical costs, including drug and administration costs, disease management and adverse events treatment fees, best supportive care and terminal care costs were obtained from sources including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and relevant literature. Health state utility values were derived from published literature. Main outcomes considered were total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $150,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty of model assumptions.

RESULTS

Compared with EP, DEP was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.86 LYs (1.73 vs. 0.87) and 0.44 QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.49). The incremental treatment cost was $95,907, and the corresponding ICER was $216,953/QALY. The result was most sensitive to the variation of durvalumab acquisition cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of DEP over EP regimen to be cost-effective was 9.4% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the case of reducing the price of durvalumab by 30.7%, DEP was more cost-effective than EP.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the U.S. payer, adding durvalumab to EP is estimated to be not cost-effective compared with EP alone for patients with untreated ES-SCLC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The information provided by this analysis serves as a reference for decision makers. Lowering the price of durvalumab would be a potential measure to improve the economics of durvalumab plus etoposide and platinum (DEP), and the inclusion of durvalumab in the Medicare pharmacopeia could make DEP more economically available. These results may also guide physicians and patients to choose the most economically feasible treatment.

Primary Prophylaxis With Biosimilar Filgrastim for Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Temporary COVID-19 guideline recommendations have recently been issued to expand the use of colony-stimulating factors in patients with cancer with intermediate to high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with biosimilar filgrastim-sndz in patients with intermediate risk of FN compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) over three different cancer types.

METHODS

A Markov decision analytic model was constructed from the US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon to evaluate PP versus SP in patients with breast cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds for incremental cost per FN avoided, life year gained, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with SP, PP provided an additional 0.102-0.144 LYs and 0.065-0.130 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ranged from $5,660 in US dollars (USD) to $20,806 USD per FN event avoided, $5,123 to $31,077 USD per life year gained, and $7,213 to $35,563 USD per QALY gained. Over 1,000 iterations, there were 73.6%, 99.4%, and 91.8% probabilities that PP was cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $50,000 USD per QALY gained for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PP with a biosimilar filgrastim (specifically filgrastim-sndz) is cost-effective in patients with intermediate risk for FN receiving curative chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer, NSCLC, and NHL. Expanding the use of colony-stimulating factors for patients may be valuable in reducing unnecessary health care visits for patients with cancer at risk of complications because of COVID-19 and should be considered for the indefinite future.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib as a First-Line Therapy for Untreated Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction

Recently, a phase III CROWN trial compared the efficacy of two anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors and demonstrated that lorlatinib displayed clinical improvement over crizotinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lorlatinib as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced ALK-positive (+) NSCLC.

Materials and Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a microsimulation model from the US payer perspective and a lifetime horizon (30 years) in patients with previous untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC. Based on the CROWN trial, patient characteristics were obtained, and the transition probabilities were estimated. All direct costs were derived from official sources and published literature. The main outcomes of the model were total costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years (LYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and multiple scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model outcomes.

Results

In the base case analysis, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treatment with lorlatinib or crizotinib as the first-line treatment was related to a mean cost of $909,758 and $616,230 (incremental cost: $293,528) and a mean survival of 4.81 QALYs and 4.09 QALYs (incremental QALY: 0.72) per patient, respectively. The main drivers of cost effectiveness were drug price and subsequent cost. PAS indicated that lorlatinib has 90% cost-effectiveness when compared to crizotinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in increased to $448,000/QALY. Scenario analysis demonstrated that lorlatinib has 100% cost-effectiveness at a WTP threshold of 200,000/QALY compared to crizotinib treatment when the price of lorlatinib is decreased to 75% ($424.5) of its original price.

Conclusions

In this study, lorlatinib was unlikely to be cost effective compared with crizotinib for patients with previously untreated advanced ALK+ NSCLC at a WTP threshold of 200,000/QALY.

New developments in locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

Locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer, due to its varying prognosis, is grouped according to TNM stage IIIA, IIIB and IIIC. Developments over the last 3 years have been focused on the integration of immunotherapy into the combination treatment of a locally definitive therapy (surgery or radiotherapy) and chemotherapy. For concurrent chemoradiotherapy, consolidation therapy with durvalumab was established. Adjuvant targeted therapy has again gained increasing interest. In order to adapt treatment to the specific stage subgroup and its prognosis, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography and pathological evaluation of the mediastinum are important. Tumours should be investigated for immunological features and driver mutations. Regarding toxicity, evaluation of pulmonary and cardiac function, as well as symptoms and quality of life, is of increasing importance. To improve the management and prognosis of this heterogeneous entity, clinical trials and registries should take these factors into account.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a systematic review

Introduction: Mutation-targeting and immuno-oncology drugs are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of these drugs have been conducted using various analytical methods and cost-effectiveness thresholds. This systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the available evidence.Area covered: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to select for CEA of targeted therapies for NSCLC in the United States published between 2008 and 2020. Among the 28 included studies, a majority were published from 2017 to 2020 (n = 18) and more than half targeted non-squamous NSCLC (n = 15). The most frequently evaluated therapy was pembrolizumab (n = 11), followed by bevacizumab (n = 8) and erlotinib (n = 4). After 2009, all included studies applied $100,000 or more thresholds. Thresholds of studies supported by industry (median = $150,000) were more distributed than those of studies supported by nonprofits (median = $100,000).Expert commentary: Medications of interest have changed and are individualized to particular mutations. The cost-effectiveness thresholds varied among sponsors but generally trended to increase over time. This review provides an overview of the available cost-effectiveness findings for stakeholders and contributes to evidence-based practice.

Cost-Effectiveness of Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: A US Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab was approved by the FDA in February 2018 for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC that has not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and this regimen is the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC.

METHODS

A 3-state semi-Markov model was used. Modeling was performed in a US healthcare setting from Medicare and commercial payer perspectives over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy (progression-free and post progression survival) and utility inputs were based on PACIFIC study data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125461; data cutoff March 22, 2018). Overall survival extrapolation was validated using overall survival data from a later data cutoff (January 31, 2019). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone, calculated as the difference in total costs between treatment strategies per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, durvalumab following cCRT was cost-effective versus cCRT alone from Medicare and commercial insurance perspectives, with ICERs of $55,285 and $61,111, respectively, per QALY gained. Durvalumab was thus considered cost-effective at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model was particularly affected by variables associated with subsequent treatment, although no tested variable increased the ICER above the WTP threshold. Scenario analyses showed the model was most sensitive to assumptions regarding time horizon, treatment effect duration, choice of fitted progression-free survival curve, subsequent immunotherapy treatment duration, and use of a partitioned survival model structure.

CONCLUSIONS

In a US healthcare setting, durvalumab was cost-effective compared with cCRT alone, further supporting the adoption of durvalumab following cCRT as the new standard of care in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide Versus Platinum-Etoposide for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide as first-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the US payer.

Methods

This study established a partition survival model for three health states, metastasis probability, and safety data based on the CASPIAN clinical trial. The health utility value was mainly derived from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

Results

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide increased QALY by 0.220 compared to that observed with platinum-etoposide only. The cost increased by $78,198.75 and the incremental cost per QALY increased by $355,448.86. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses indicated that the model parameters varied within a limited range and had no significant effect on the results.

Conclusions

Although durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide can improve quality of life, it also substantially increases the cost of medical treatment. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, durvalumab does not have a cost-effective comparative advantage.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibition With Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Safety Results

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) administered concurrently with or after definitive chemoradiation (CRT) in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been detailed in several studies. We performed a systematic review to determine pneumonitis rates using ICIs with CRT. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched using keywords and MeSH terms. Studies using anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, either sequentially or concurrently with CRT, for patients with stage III NSCLC were included. A meta-analysis of pneumonitis rates was performed based on weighted pooled proportion, using random-effects models. Weighting was performed by the inverse variance or standard error of event rates. Comparative analysis between groups was performed. Odds ratios (OR) were used as the primary summary statistics. A total of 13 studies were identified (6 prospective clinical trials and 7 real-world reports). Rates of grade ≥ 3 pneumonitis were significantly higher in clinical trials using anti-PD-1 therapy compared with PD-L1 inhibitors (8.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2%-11.9% vs. 4.4%; 95% CI, 3.0%-6.6%; OR, 2.0; P = .01). Clinical trials using concurrent ICI therapy with CRT had greater rates of grade 2 pneumonitis compared with sequential administration (23.0%; 95% CI, 15.8%-32.3% vs. 11.0%; 95% CI, 6.6%-17.8%; OR, 0.42; P = .02). Higher rates of grade ≥ 3 pneumonitis were observed in real-world studies compared with clinical trials involving sequential PD-L1 therapy (9.9%; 95% CI, 5.3%-17.9% vs. 4.4%; 95% CI, 2.9%-6.7%; OR, 0.43; P < .01). The suggestion of increased pneumonitis with a concurrent ICI strategy and using anti-PD-1 therapies warrants further consideration in future comparative studies.

Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to escalating healthcare costs.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing the cost effectiveness of ICIs for NSCLC. Potential studies identified were independently checked for eligibility by two authors, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.

Results

A total of 22 economic studies were included. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS recommendations. In the first-line setting, for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, pembrolizumab appeared cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the US and Hong Kong (China), but not in the UK and China. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of NSCLC in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients remained obscure. Regardless of PD-L1 expression status, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective first-line therapy in the US. On the contrary, addition of atezolizumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not cost-effective for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the US payer perspective. In the second-line setting compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was cost-effective; though nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case, it could be by increased PD-L1 threshold. Results of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab second-line treatment remained inconsistent. In addition, the adoption of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy could be cost-effective versus no consolidation therapy for patients with stage III NSCLC.

Conclusions

Immunotherapy can be a cost-effective option for treatment of NSCLC in several scenarios. A discount of the agents or the use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker improves the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of recombinant human endostatin combined with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of recombinant human endostatin in combination with radiotherapy (RT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC).

METHODS

We searched eligible literature in available databases using combinations of the following search terms: lung cancer, endostatin or endostar, radiotherapy or radiation therapy or chemoradiotherapy. The inclusion criteria were: prospective or retrospective (including single-arm) studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of endostatin plus radiotherapy (ERT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (ECRT) in patients with LA-NSCLC. Primary outcomes included the following: objective response rate (ORR), local control rates (LCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Tests of heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients with LA-NSCLC from 7 studies were enrolled, including six prospective trials and one retrospective study. The pooled median PFS was 11.3 months overall, 11.2 months in the ECRT group, and 11.8 months in the ERT group. Pooled median OS and ORR were 18.9 months and 77.2% overall, 18.4 months and 77.5% in the ECRT group, and 19.6 months and 76.1% in the ERT group, respectively. The incidences of major grade ≥ 3 AEs for all patients, subgroups of ECRT and ERT were 10.9% vs 11.9% vs 9.4% for radiation pneumonitis, 11.6% vs 12.2% vs 9.4% for radiation esophagitis, 35.5% vs 43.4% vs 0 for leukopenia, 27.8% vs 40.7% vs 2.1% for neutropenia, and 10.5% vs 12.3% vs 2.1% for anemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined endostatin with RT or CCRT is effective and well tolerated in treating LA-NSCLC, and less toxicities occur. Further validation through prospective randomized control trials is required.

Update on Targeted Therapies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Durvalumab in Context

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the therapeutic strategy and prognosis of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Nowadays, ICIs as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy are the standard of care treatment in advanced NSCLC, and in stage III, durvalumab (a programmed death ligand 1 inhibitor) is the unique drug approved as consolidation treatment after chemo-radiotherapy. This article reviews the pharmacological properties, clinical activity and safety of durvalumab as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy or other ICIs in the therapeutic strategy of NSCLC patients.

Cost-effectiveness and Net Monetary Benefit of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy Versus No Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Italian National Health Service

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of durvalumab consolidation therapy compared with no consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression ≥1% from the Italian National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

We developed a 12-month decision tree combined with a lifetime cohort Markov model in which patients were assigned to receive durvalumab consolidation therapy or active follow-up (Italian standard of care) after chemoradiotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the two strategies during a 40-year period. Clinical outcomes data were obtained from the respective clinical trials and extrapolated using survival analysis; cost data were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost-utility ratio, and incremental net monetary benefit were computed and compared against a 16,372 € per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) willingness-to-pay threshold. We performed deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess how uncertainty affected results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings.

FINDINGS

In the base-case scenario, during a 40-year period, the total costs for patients treated with durvalumab consolidation therapy and active follow-up were €59,860 and €49,840 respectively; life-years gained were 3.47 and 3.31, respectively; and QALYs gained were 2.73 and 2.50, respectively, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €62,131 per life-year, an incremental cost-utility ratio of €42,322 per QALY, and an incremental net monetary benefit of €-6,144. We found that durvalumab was cost-effective (incremental net monetary benefit = 0) when a discount of 13% and 30% on its official price was applied, considering all other drugs priced according to official or maximum selling prices, respectively. Results were most sensitive to the progression-free survival rate for durvalumab and active follow-up, health utility in progression-free state, and price of subsequent treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

Our analysis indicates that durvalumab consolidation is cost-effective when a discount is applied on its official price. These results suggest that durvalumab may deliver an incremental health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 40-year period, from the Italian National Health Service perspective, providing added value in a potentially curative care setting.

Long Noncoding RNA SNHG6 Functions as an Oncogene in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer via Modulating ETS1 Signaling

Background

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a great threat to human health and the biology of the NSCLC still remains largely unknown. Aberrantly expressed long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) Small nucleolar RNA host gene 6 (SNHG6) was involved in the tumorigenesis and progression of various cancers. The aim of this study is to investigate the roles of SNHG6 in NSCLC.

Methods

qRT-PCR and Western blot assays were applied to detect gene expressions. Cell proliferation and migration assays were used to analyze the gene functions. Luciferase reporter assay, RNA Immunoprecipitation assay and Chromatin immunoprecipitation assay were performed to investigate the molecular mechanism.

Results

We found that SNHG6 expression was significantly increased in NSCLC tissues and cell lines and its high expression was correlated with malignant features of NSCLC. In in vitro assays, knockdown of SNHG6 significantly depressed the proliferation vitality and migration activity of NSCLC cells. Research on mechanisms revealed that SNHG6 exerted its tumorigenesis role by promoting ETS1 expression via competitively binding with miR-944 and miR-181d-5p. We also demonstrated that ETS1 enhanced the expression of WIPF1 via binding to its promoter and SNHG6 could thereby regulate the expression of ETS1 target genes including WIPF1, MMP2 and MMP9.

Conclusion

Our study illustrates that SNHG6 is an oncogene in NSCLC and involved in NSCLC tumorigenesis by regulating ETS1 signaling via miR-944 and miR-181d-5p.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden

Objectives

While previous cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have found these regimens to be cost-effective, their reliance on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with strict inclusion criteria limits generalizability to patients with comorbidities. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with various comorbidities.

Materials and methods

In our base case analysis, we studied pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab combination therapy) versus chemotherapy alone. In a secondary analysis, we considered only patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% (PD-L1-high) and evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab combination therapy, and chemotherapy alone. Microsimulation models were developed for the base case and the PD-L1-high analyses. To estimate outcomes of patients with differing comorbidities, we combined survival data from patients with few or no comorbidities from the RCTs with estimates from the general population obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Comorbidity burden level was divided into three groups based on the Charlson score (equal to 0, 1, or 2+); patients with various other specific comorbidities were also analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results

In the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patient populations, estimated ICERs for pembrolizumab combination therapy in the base case model were $173,919/QALY, $175,165/QALY, and $181,777/QALY, respectively, compared to chemotherapy.

In the PD-L1-high model, the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patients had ICERs of $147,406/QALY, $149,026/QALY, and $154,521/QALY with pembrolizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy was weakly dominated for each comorbidity group in the PD-L1-high model.

Conclusion

For patients with stage IV NSCLC and varying comorbidity burden, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab does not represent a cost-effective strategy compared to chemotherapy. Resources should be focused on collecting immunotherapy survival data for more representative NSCLC patient populations.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidation immunotherapy with durvalumab in stage III NSCLC responding to definitive radiochemotherapy in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Consolidation immunotherapy with the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor durvalumab improves survival in patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer responding to radiochemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in Switzerland based on the most recent PACIFIC survival follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We constructed a Markov model based on the 3-year follow-up data of the PACIFIC trial and compared consolidation durvalumab with observation. We used published utility values and assessed costs for treatment strategies from the perspective of the Swiss health care payers. Cost-effectiveness was tested both in the intention-to-treat population of the PACIFIC trial unselected for PD-L1 tumor expression and in patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%).

RESULTS

In the unselected/PD-L1-positive patients, durvalumab showed an incremental effectiveness of 0.76/1.18 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental costs of Swiss Francs (CHF) 67 239/78 177, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CHF 88 703/66 131 per QALY gained, respectively. The most influential factors for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were the utility before first progression, costs for durvalumab, and the hazard ratio for overall survival under durvalumab versus observation. The cost-effectiveness of durvalumab was better than CHF 100 000 per QALY gained in 75% of the simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100 000 per QALY gained, consolidation durvalumab is likely to be cost-effective both in patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) unselected for PD-L1 status and in patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors in Switzerland.