Lenvatinib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Camrelizumab combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and sorafenib or lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter, retrospective study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

We initiated this study to explore the efficacy of camrelizumab combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib or lenvatinib versus TACE plus sorafenib or Lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2019 to November 2022, 127 advanced HCC patients were retrospectively analyzed in this study. This consisted of 44 patients that received camrelizumab plus TACE plus sorafenib or lenvatinib (triple therapy group) and 83 patients that received TACE plus sorafenib or lenvatinib (double treatment group). The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were compared between the two patient groups.

RESULTS

Our findings demonstrated that patients received the triple therapy exhibited superior median OS (15.8 vs. 10.3 months, P=0.0011) and median PFS (7.2 vs. 5.2 months, P=0.019) compared to the double treatment group. In addition, the triple therapy group exhibited better 6-month (93.5% vs. 66.3%), 12-month (67.2% vs. 36.3%), and 24-month (17.2% vs. 7.6%) survival rates than the double treatment group. However, the ORR (43.2% vs. 28.9%, P = 0.106) and DCR (93.2% vs. 81.9%, P = 0.084) of the two groups were similar. Subgroup analysis showed that compared with the double treatment group, the triple therapy group had a better mOS for HCC with HBV (15.8 vs. 9.6 months, P = 0.0015) and tumor diameter ≥ 5cm (15.3 vs. 9.6 months, P = 0.00055).

CONCLUSIONS

Camrelizumab plus TACE and sorafenib or lenvatinib may be a promising treatment approach for the clinical management of unresectable HCC patients.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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