Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Economic evaluation of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States and China

BACKGROUND

Camrelizumab combined with rivoceranib has been proven effective for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, their higher prices than sorafenib could impose a substantial economic burden on patients.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with uHCC from the perspective of the US and Chinese payers.

METHOD

Using data from the CARES-310 trial, a partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed, considering the perspectives of the US and Chinese payers. The model employed a 15-year time horizon and a biweekly cycle. Direct medical costs and utility data were collected from previous studies and open-access databases. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Price simulations, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER for the US and China was $122,388.62/QALY and $30,410.56/QALY, respectively, falling below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY for the US and $35,898.87/QALY for China. Price simulations indicated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib when the price of camrelizumab (200 mg) remained below $6275.19 in the US and $558.09 in China. The primary determinant of cost-effectiveness in both regions was the cost of camrelizumab.

CONCLUSION

The combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib is a cost-effective first-line therapy for uHCC in both the US and China. Lowering their prices could significantly influence their cost-effectiveness and accessibility to patients. These findings will guide clinicians in treating uHCC and help decision-makers formulate value-based drug pricing strategies.

Recommended 10-Year Follow-Up Strategy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Radiofrequency Ablation: A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

An optimal follow-up schedule for small (≤3-cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remains unclear in clinical guidelines. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies in patients with small HCC after RFA.

METHODS

In total, 11,243 patients were collected from global institutions to calculate recurrence rates. Subsequently, a Markov model covering a 10-year period was developed to compare 25 surveillance strategies involving different surveillance techniques (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography [US], and α-fetoprotein [AFP]) and intervals (3 or 6 months). The study endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represented additional cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the values of input parameters to observe the ICER.

RESULTS

In a base case analysis, the dominant strategy was CT every 3 months during an initial 2 years, followed by semiannual CT, and then switch to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years (m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP), with an ICER of $68,570.92 compared with the "not followed" strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER consistently remained below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.00. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP was the most cost-effective approach in 95.6% of simulated scenarios at a willingness-to-pay threshold.

DISCUSSION

For small HCC after RFA, the recommended follow-up strategy is CT, with scans scheduled every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months thereafter, and transition to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab Plus Rivoceranib Versus Sorafenib as a First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Chinese Health Care System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed significant clinical benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess its cost effectiveness from the perspective of Chinese health care system.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the Phase 3 randomized CARES-310 clinical trial data. Health state utility values were obtained from the CARES-310 clinical trial, and direct medical costs were derived from the relevant literature and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were 0.41 QALYs and $13,684.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $33,619.98/QALY, lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib were $35,920.01 and $29,717.98 in patients with ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of camrelizumab, the proportion of patients receiving subsequent treatment in the camrelizumab plus rivoceranib group, and the cost of rivoceranib were the most significant factors in the base-case analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of cost effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib were 61.27%, 51.46%, and 82.78% for any grade, and ALBI grade 1 and grade 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was more cost effective than sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in the Chinese setting.

Cost-effectiveness and prognostic model of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with high tumor burden and/or Vp4 tumor thrombus compared with sorafenib: a post-hoc analysis of the FOHAIC-1 trial

OBJECTIVES

The phase III FOHAIC-1 trial revealed that hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC) improved overall survival compared to sorafenib in the high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study therefore set out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and establish a prognostic clinico-radiological score of HAIC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 409 patients with high-risk HCC who received HAIC between 2014 and 2020 were included. A Markov model was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the FOHAIC-1 trial. In prognosis analysis, a clinico-radiological score was developed using a Cox-regression model and subsequently confirmed in the internal validation and test cohorts. The area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to assess the performance of the clinico-radiological score.

RESULTS

HAIC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10190.41/quality-adjusted life years compared to sorafenib, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a ≥99.9% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay. The Cox analysis identified five factors, namely extrahepatic metastasis (m), arterial enhancing type (a), tumor number (nu), albumin-bilirubin index (a), and involved lobe (l), which together comprise the clinico-radiological score (HAIC-manual). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of factors present, with cutoffs at 2 and 4 factors. The stratified median overall survival for these groups were 21.6, 10.0, and 5.9 months, respectively ( P <0.001). These findings were verified through internal validation and test cohorts with a significance level of P ≤0.01. The time-dependent area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic for the ability of the HAIC-manual to predict survival in 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.71, 0.76, and 0.78, which significantly outperformed existing staging systems.

CONCLUSION

HAIC is a promising and cost-effective strategy for patients with high-risk HCC. The clinico-radiological score may be a simple prognostic tool for predicting HAIC treatment.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding transarterial chemoembolisation to lenvatinib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (LEN) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) (LEN-TACE) and LEN alone to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A three-state partitioned survival model using clinical survival data from a phase III LAUNCH trial, a 5-year time horizon for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of LEN-TACE. Clinical inputs were extracted from the LAUNCH trial, with outcomes extrapolated using standard and flexible parametric survival models. Costs and utilities derived from published literature were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

SETTING

The Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with advanced HCC.

INTERVENTIONS

TACE plus LEN versus LEN.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Base-case analysis revealed that LEN-TACE would be cost-effective in China at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37 663 per QALYs, with improved effectiveness of 0.382 QALYs and additional cost of $12 151 (ICER: $31 808 per QALY). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that LEN-TACE had a 93.5% probability of cost-effectiveness at WTP threshold of three times gross domestic product per capital ($37 663). One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the duration of LEN treatment in both two arms, utility of progression-free survival and the cost of TACE had a greater impact on the stability of ICER values. Scenario analyses results were in line with base-case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LEN-TACE might be a cost-effective strategy compared with LEN for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of transarterial chemoembolization combined with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Purpose: Results from the LAUNCH trial suggest transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in combination with lenvatinib is significantly more effective than lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost of TACE is substantial. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of TACE in combination with lenvatinib (TACE-LEN) with that of lenvatinib alone as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models of different health states were constructed to simulate first-line treatment, disease progression, and survival in patients with advanced HCC. Clinical efficacy was obtained from the LAUNCH trial. The cost of drugs was sourced from national tender prices, and the treatment cost of weight-decreased was obtained from the Fujian Provincial Bureau of Prices. Other costs and utility values were based on the published literature. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comprised the model output. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate model robustness and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Results: Analysis of the model showed that compared to lenvatinib, TACE-LEN improved effectiveness by 1.60 QALYs at a total cost increase of $48,874.69, with an ICER value of $30,482.13/QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the progression-free survival utility value per year had the greatest impact on the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that TACE-LEN had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value was $38,201/QALY (three times the Chinese GDP per capita in 2022). Subgroup analysis showed that all subgroups of patients preferred TACE-LEN. However, when the WTP threshold was below $30,300/QALY, TACE-LEN is no longer cost-effective. Conclusion: Our study found TACE-LEN to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, but not so in low-income provinces in China.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with less adverse events (AE) compared with sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival mode was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The clinical data and outcomes were obtained from CheckMate 459 trial. Medical costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment with nivolumab yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $65,579.19 compared with sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $236,765.93/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analysis found the model outputs to be most affected for hazard ratio (HR) of OS and the cost of nivolumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 0% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201.19/QALY. The scenario analyses indicated altering the time horizon of the model did not reverse the economic results.

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced HCC compared with sorafenib, but was estimated not to be cost-effective at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of China.

Beneficial Effect of Combining Radiotherapy and Transarterial Chemoembolization on Patient Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinomas and Macrovascular Invasion Treated with Sorafenib

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10-40% of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients have definite vascular invasion at the time of diagnosis. Without curative treatment options, these patients have an abysmal prognosis with a median survival of only a few months following systemic therapy. However, supportive evidence of combining multiple locoregional treatments with systemic therapy is limited. This study compared the outcomes of sorafenib alone versus multimodality therapy with sorafenib, radiotherapy (RT), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in advanced HCC patients with macrovascular invasion (MaVI).

METHODS

The process took place over a nine-year period between March 2009 and October 2017, wherein 78 HCC patients with MaVI who underwent either sorafenib therapy alone (n = 49) or combined sorafenib/RT/TACE (n = 29) therapy were chosen for the retrospective study. We compared the overall survival (OS) between the two groups using the Cox regression hazard model and adjusted imbalances using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

At the last follow-up, 76 patients had died, with a median follow-up time of 4.8 months for all patients and 31 months for those who were alive. Patients treated with sorafenib/RT/TACE had superior OS compared to those treated with sorafenib alone, showing a median survival of 9.3 vs. 2.7 months and a one-year survival of 37.1% vs. 6.1% (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, new diagnosis or recurrence of HCC and treatment modalities (sorafenib alone vs. sorafenib/RT/TACE) were independent prognostic factors for OS. Compared to patients treated with sorafenib alone, significantly better OS was further verified using PSM (p < 0.001) in patients who received multiple therapeutic modalities.

CONCLUSION

Multimodality therapy with sorafenib/RT/TACE increased OS threefold versus sorafenib therapy alone in HCC patients with MaVI. This study offers promising benefits of combined locoregional and systemic therapy for advanced HCC in current patient management and prospective clinical trials.

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

Introduction

The existence of many phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) puzzle doctors and patients in choosing the most effective treatment strategies. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy or targeted therapy as the first-line strategy for unresectable HCC.

Methods

The included clinical trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases, in which immunotherapy or targeted therapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for unresectable HCC, published in English between January 1, 2010, and September 20, 2022. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the Chinese payer's perspective. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the ranks of different treatments using P-score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated by NMA. Total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated from 15-year Markov models developed by CEA.

Results

We identified 2,825 records, including 11,796 patients, from 15 RCTs. The NMA revealed that sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.75; P = 0.96) and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P = 0.94) could lead to great improvements in OS and PFS compared with sorafenib-related survival. The CEA indicated that tislelizumab increased by 0.220 QALYs (0.312 LYs) and decreased by $1,938 compared with sorafenib, which yielded ICERs of -$8,809/QALY (-$2,612/LY). Sensitivity analysis showed that the model was stable.

Conclusion

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib significantly prolonged OS and PFS, respectively. Further considering the pharmacoeconomics factors, tislelizumab is the most cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for unresectable HCC in China.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab vs. placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

Results of Orient 15 indicated the health benefits to patients with local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy in treating OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating OSCC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from Orient 15. Costs and utilities were collected from published studies and open-access databases. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses to verify the stability of results.

Results

Combination therapy provided additional 0.84 QALYs and 1.46 life-years with an incremental cost of $25,565.48 than chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $30,409.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that combination therapy had a 98.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $38,184 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that model outcomes were sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and progression disease. The subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was cost-effective in patients with high expression of PD-L1 and several specific subgroups.

Conclusion

In this economic evaluation, sintilimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians to make optimal decisions in clinical practice and for decision-makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus an Anti-VEGF Antibody as the First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background: Sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (SB) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB) have been approved for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). At present, oncologists and their patients remain indecisive on their preferred treatment regime. Therefore, assessing their efficacy via a network meta-analysis and determining their comparative cost-effectiveness is necessary. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB compared with sorafenib alone for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Materials and Methods: The data used in our analysis were obtained from patients in ORIENT-32 and IMbrave150 phase III randomized clinical trials. A Bayesian network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis that included 1,072 patients were performed in this study. A partitioned survival model was applied to the patients with unresectable HCC. The model was designed with a 15-year time horizon, 1-month cycle, and 5% discount rate for costs and outcomes. In China, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of less than $33,500 (three times the GDP per capita in 2020) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is considered cost-effective. The influence of parameter uncertainty on the results was verified by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, scenario analyses of the patient assistance program (PAP) were conducted to explore the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB. Results: For the model of 1,072 patients, treatment with SB produced an additional 0.617 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $39,766.86/QALY. Similarly, treatment with AB produced an additional 0.596 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $103,037.66/QALY. The probability sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $33,500/QALY, the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB was 15.4 and 0.4%, respectively. However, in the scenario analyses, the probability of SB and AB regimens being cost-effective was 65.4 and 15.8%, respectively, at a WTP of $33,500/QALY. Conclusion: The findings from our study showed that sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar is a cost-effective regimen compared with sorafenib as the first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in China at a $33,500 WTP threshold if sintilimab PAP is considered. However, the atezolizumab + bevacizumab regimen is not cost-effective whether atezolizumab PAP is considered or not.

Intravitreal injection of EV11, a novel aryl ketone amide, inhibits choroidal neovascularization via AKT/ERK1/2 pathway

PURPOSE

Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is the major cause of irreversible vision loss associated with age-related macular disease (AMD). The currently clinical chemical therapeutic strategies are of high cost and facing supply chain shortage. In our study, we aim to investigate EV11, a novel derivative from Sorafenib, as a new approach to inhibit the formation of CNV.

METHODS

Cell viability assay, wound healing assay, transwell assay and tube formation assay were applied to explore the effects of EV11 on human vascular endothelial cells (HUVECs). Western blotting analysis was performed to investigate the pathways when EV11 acts on HUVECs. Laser-induced CNV in mice and intravitreal injection of EV11 were applied to find out the efficacy of the drug in vivo. Histological examination and electroretinogram (ERG) evaluated the retinal morphology and visual function after drug application.

RESULTS

EV11 influenced the HUVECs cell viability as the concentration increasing after 24 hour incubation. It influenced HUVECs through suppressing AKT and ERK1/2 pathway. EV11 reduced CNV area with the optimal concentration of 200uM in mice eyes and compared with Bevacizumab, it had the same effect. The retinal thickness around the optic in each group was not influenced. The amplitudes of the a- and b-waves on scotopic and photopic ERG were not reduced after intravitreal injection.

CONCLUSION

The present study indicated that EV11 affected the proliferation, migration and tube formation of HUVECs, inhibited the area of neovascular of laser induced choroidal neovascularization in mice eyes with no toxicity. EV11 could block the AKT/ERK1/2 signaling pathway in effects of HUVECs. This study unveiled a novel perspective drug EV11 to be a potential candidate for neovascularization.

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.

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.

Fasting improves therapeutic response in hepatocellular carcinoma through p53-dependent metabolic synergism

Cancer cells voraciously consume nutrients to support their growth, exposing metabolic vulnerabilities that can be therapeutically exploited. Here, we show in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells, xenografts, and patient-derived organoids that fasting improves sorafenib efficacy and acts synergistically to sensitize sorafenib-resistant HCC. Mechanistically, sorafenib acts noncanonically as an inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration, causing resistant cells to depend on glycolysis for survival. Fasting, through reduction in glucose and impeded AKT/mTOR signaling, prevents this Warburg shift. Regulating glucose transporter and proapoptotic protein expression, p53 is necessary and sufficient for the sorafenib-sensitizing effect of fasting. p53 is also crucial for fasting-mediated improvement of sorafenib efficacy in an orthotopic HCC mouse model. Together, our data suggest fasting and sorafenib as rational combination therapy for HCC with intact p53 signaling. As HCC therapy is currently severely limited by resistance, these results should instigate clinical studies aimed at improving therapy response in advanced-stage HCC.

The Efficacy of TACE Combined With Lenvatinib Plus Sintilimab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) combined with lenvatinib plus sintilimab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Patients and Methods

The data of patients with unresectable HCC administered a combination therapy with TACE and lenvatinib plus sintilimab were retrospectively assessed. Patients received lenvatinib orally once daily 2 weeks before TACE, followed by sintilimab administration at 200 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day therapeutic cycle after TACE. The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by the modified RECIST criteria.

Results

Median duration of follow-up was 12.5 months (95%CI 9.1 to 14.8 months). ORR was 46.7% (28/60). Median DOR in confirmed responders was 10.0 months (95%CI 9.0-11.0 months). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 13.3 months (95%CI 11.9-14.7 months). Median overall survival (OS) was 23.6 months (95%CI 22.2-25.0 months).

Conclusions

TACE combined with lenvatinib plus sintilimab is a promising therapeutic regimen in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib or atezolizumab alone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of current standard therapy, the prognosis of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is poor, with median survival times of 40 mo for intermediate HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage B) and 6–8 mo for advanced HCC (BCLC stage C). Although patients with early-stage HCC are usually suitable for therapies with curative intention, up to 70% of patients experience relapse within 5 years. In the past decade, the United States Food and Drug Administration has approved different immunogenic treatment options for advanced HCC, the most common type of liver cancer among adults. Nevertheless, no treatment is useful in the adjuvant setting. Since 2007, the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib has been used as a first-line targeted drug to address the increased mortality and incidence rates of HCC. However, in 2020, the IMbrave150 trial demonstrated that combination therapy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) and bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) is superior to sorafenib, a single anti-programmed death 1/PD-L1 antibody inhibitor used as an anti-cancer monotherapy for HCC treatment.

AIM

To conduct a systematic literature review to evaluate the evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab as preferred first-line drug therapy over the conventional sorafenib or atezolizumab monotherapies, which are used to improve survival outcomes and reduce disease progression in patients with unresectable HCC and non-decompensated liver disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed Central, Embase, EuropePMC, and CINAHL databases to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria using relevant MeSH terms. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and Sevis.

RESULTS

In the atezolizumab/bevacizumab group, an improvement in overall tumor response, reduction of disease progression, and longer progression-free survival were observed compared to monotherapy with either sorafenib or atezolizumab. Hypertension and proteinuria were the most common adverse events, and the rates of adverse events were comparable to those with the monotherapy. Of the studies, there were two completed trials and two ongoing trials analyzed using high quality and low bias. A more thorough analysis was only performed on the completed trials.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of HCC with atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination therapy was confirmed to be an effective first-line treatment to improve survival in patients with unresectable HCC and non-decompensated liver disease compared to monotherapy with either sorafenib or atezolizumab.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib or atezolizumab alone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of current standard therapy, the prognosis of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is poor, with median survival times of 40 mo for intermediate HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage B) and 6-8 mo for advanced HCC (BCLC stage C). Although patients with early-stage HCC are usually suitable for therapies with curative intention, up to 70% of patients experience relapse within 5 years. In the past decade, the United States Food and Drug Administration has approved different immunogenic treatment options for advanced HCC, the most common type of liver cancer among adults. Nevertheless, no treatment is useful in the adjuvant setting. Since 2007, the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib has been used as a first-line targeted drug to address the increased mortality and incidence rates of HCC. However, in 2020, the IMbrave150 trial demonstrated that combination therapy of atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) and bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) is superior to sorafenib, a single anti-programmed death 1/PD-L1 antibody inhibitor used as an anti-cancer monotherapy for HCC treatment.

AIM

To conduct a systematic literature review to evaluate the evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab as preferred first-line drug therapy over the conventional sorafenib or atezolizumab monotherapies, which are used to improve survival outcomes and reduce disease progression in patients with unresectable HCC and non-decompensated liver disease.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed Central, Embase, EuropePMC, and CINAHL databases to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria using relevant MeSH terms. This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and risk of bias (RoB) were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and Sevis.

RESULTS

In the atezolizumab/bevacizumab group, an improvement in overall tumor response, reduction of disease progression, and longer progression-free survival were observed compared to monotherapy with either sorafenib or atezolizumab. Hypertension and proteinuria were the most common adverse events, and the rates of adverse events were comparable to those with the monotherapy. Of the studies, there were two completed trials and two ongoing trials analyzed using high quality and low bias. A more thorough analysis was only performed on the completed trials.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of HCC with atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination therapy was confirmed to be an effective first-line treatment to improve survival in patients with unresectable HCC and non-decompensated liver disease compared to monotherapy with either sorafenib or atezolizumab.

Bevacizumab biosimilar LY01008 compared with bevacizumab (Avastin) as first-line treatment for Chinese patients with unresectable, metastatic, or recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated the preclinical pharmacological and toxicological consistency, and clinical pharmacokinetic equivalence of bevacizumab biosimilar LY01008 with reference bevacizumab (Avastin). This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LY01008 with Avastin in first-line treatment of Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Stage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients with evaluable lesions, good physical status, and adequate organ functions from 67 centers across China were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive LY01008 or Avastin 15 mg/kg intravenously in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin (combined treatment) for 4-6 cycles, followed by maintenance monotherapy with LY01008 until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 confirmed by independent radiological review committees (IRRC). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03533127).

RESULTS

Between December 15th , 2017, and May 15th , 2019, a total of 649 patients were randomized to the LY01008 (n = 324) or Avastin (n = 325) group. As of September 25th , 2019 for primary endpoint analysis, 589 patients received ORR evaluation, with a median number of combined treatment cycles of 5 (range 1-6) and median duration of treatment of 3.0 (range 0.0-5.1) months. ORR of response-evaluable patients in the LY01008 and Avastin groups were 48.5% and 53.0%, respectively. The stratified ORR ratio was 0.91 (90% CI 0.80-1.04, within the prespecified equivalence margin of 0.75-1.33). Up to May 15th , 2020, with a median follow-up of 13.6 (range 0.8-28.4) months, no notable differences in DCR, median DoR, median PFS, median OS, and 1-year OS rate were observed between the LY01008 and Avastin groups. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety and immunogenicity across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LY01008 demonstrated similarity to Avastin in terms of efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC. LY01008 combined with paclitaxel/carboplatin is expected to become a new treatment option for unresectable, metastatic, or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC patients in the first-line setting.

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.

Can primary hepatocellular carcinoma histomorphology predict extrahepatic metastasis?

Studies comparing the histomorphologic features and phenotypic heterogeneity between primary and its corresponding metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the histomorphologic features and heterogeneity between primary and metastatic HCC. A total of 39 cases with both primary and metastatic tissues were identified from pathology archives (2000-2019). The common sites of metastasis included lung (28.21%), abdominal cavity (25.64%), lymph nodes (20.51%), bone (17.95%), soft tissue (15.38%), and adrenal gland (10.26%). Both the primary and metastatic tumors showed heterogeneity in intratumoral histologic patterns (87.18% and 76.92%, respectively). The most common histologic pattern was solid in both primary (61.54%) and metastases (56.41%), followed by macrotrabecular in primary (17.95%) and metastases (10.26%). Among HCC-subtypes, macrotrabecular-massive HCC was the most common subtype in both primary and metastases (28.21% each). Primary tumors in noncirrhotic livers were more likely to have larger size and microvascular invasion than those in cirrhotic livers. The histomorphology (histologic pattern, subtype, and grade) between the primary and metastases was discordant in about 50% cases (48.72%, 48.72%, and 51.28%, respectively). Our findings exhibit significant intratumoral heterogeneity and histomorphologic discordance between primary and metastatic HCCs. The solid and macrotrabecular histologic patterns and the macrotrabecular-massive subtype were the most common histomorphologic features seen in primary tumors associated with metastasis. Further studies to identify and explore different pathways that promote HCC metastasis and to compare the differences between primary and metastatic tumors on a larger cohort are needed to better understand the pathogenesis of metastasis.

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

IMPORTANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Case Report: Clinical Responses to Tislelizumab as a First-Line Therapy for Primary Hepatocellular Carcinoma With B-Cell Indolent Lymphoma

Background

As an emerging therapy with a promising efficacy, immunotherapy has been widely used in the treatment of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. This clinical study compares the efficacy of tislelizumab, a domestic immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), to that of sorafenib when used as a first-line therapeutic option in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and the concurrence of HCC and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) is rare, especially in the treatment of ICIs.

Case presentation

A 61-year-old patient presenting with primary HCC and indolent B-cell lymphoma had a partial clinical response to tislelizumab for his primary HCC. Besides, we described a phenomenon of pseudo-progression and delayed diagnosis of his lymphoma during a long course of treatment.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab, an immunotherapeutic option with a favorable efficacy and toxicity, can be used to manage double primary tumors. However, studies should aim to elucidate the probable mechanisms of this therapy. Pseudo-progression and separation remission make the treatment of double primary tumors even more challenging, which calls for additional caution in patients undergoing immunotherapy to avoid misdiagnosis and, therefore, begin early appropriate interventions.

First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Simple Summary

There is a growing body of literature demonstrating high cancer drug costs relative to the benefits provided to patients treated on a large scale. We examined the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 trial IMbrave 150. Our model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. We found that atezolizumab–bevacizumab was cost-effective if we assumed all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of hepatocellular carcinoma. Otherwise, atezolizumab–bevacizumab was not cost-effective. We concluded that price reduction, duration of therapy capped to ≤12 months, or dosage of bevacizumab reduced to ≤10 mg/kg would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical benefits were modest. The long-term effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab is a critical factor of its cost-effectiveness. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Abstract

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.