Cost Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy as First-line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in Japan

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) combination therapy (NIVO + IPI) compared with the sunitinib (SUN) therapy for Japanese patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the perspective of a Japanese health insurance payer.

METHODS

A lifetime horizon was applied, and 2% per annum was set as the discount rate. The threshold was set as $ 75 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. For the analytical method, we used a partitioned survival analysis model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated by dividing incremental costs by incremental QALYs. Progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death were set as health states. Additionally, cost parameters and utility weights were set as key parameters. We set the intermediate/poor-risk population as the base case. Scenario analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat population and the favorable risk population. Furthermore, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted for each population.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the QALYs of NIVO + IPI and SUN were 4.32 and 2.99, respectively. NIVO + IPI conferred 1.34 additional QALYs. Meanwhile, the total costs in the NIVO + IPI and SUN were $692 288 and $475 481, respectively. As a result, the ICER of NIVO + IPI compared with SUN was estimated to be $162 243 per QALY gained. The parameter that greatly affected the ICER was the utility weight of progression-free survival in NIVO + IPI.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + IPI for advanced renal cell carcinoma seems to be not cost-effective compared with the SUN in the Japanese healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

Is Alpelisib Plus Fulvestrant Cost-Effective for Treating PIK3CA-Mutation, HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer in the USA?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is a considerable survival benefit of alpelisib in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC), yet the financial burden may limit its use. Therefore, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alpelisib plus fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2- ABC in the USA.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the progression of PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2- ABC. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the SOLAR-1 trial. A parametric survival model was used to explore the long-term effect. From a US payer perspective, only direct medical costs were considered. The cost data were estimated based on local pricing and relevant literature. The health outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model stability was assessed using one-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore cost-effectiveness outcomes for patients with different clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The QALY increased by 0.28 with alpelisib plus fulvestrant with an additional cost of $94,345.87 compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $340,153.30/QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the model is most sensitive to the price of alpelisib. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, alpelisib plus fulvestrant was cost effective when the cost of alpelisib was less than $71 per 300 mg (36.5 % of the original price), whereas this cost would be less than $168 per 300 mg (86.5 % of the original price) at a WTP threshold of $300,000/QALY. In addition, alpelisib + fulvestrant was not cost effective in all subgroups compared with placebo + fulvestrant at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. In contrast, at the WTP threshold of $300,000/QALY, alpelisib + fulvestrant was cost effective in nearly all subgroups except for endocrine-sensitive patients.

CONCLUSION

At current drug prices, alpelisib plus fulvestrant is not cost effective for patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2- ABC from a US payer perspective. Given the considerable progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits observed with alpelisib in this setting, further discussion and negotiation of the price of alpelisib are warranted to provide more favorable economic outcomes and thereby increase the value of the alpelisib plus fulvestrant regimen in patients.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly evolved in recent years. Without direct comparator trials, factors such as cost effectiveness (CE) are important to guide decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the CE of guideline-recommended approved first- and second-line treatment regimens.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A comprehensive Markov model was developed to analyze the CE of the five current National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapies with appropriate second-line therapy for patient cohorts with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable and intermediate/poor risk.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and total accumulated costs were estimated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

In patients with favorable risk, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib added $32 935 in costs and yielded 0.28 QALYs, resulting in an incremental CE ratio (ICER) of $117 625 per QALY in comparison to pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib. In patients with intermediate/poor risk, nivolumab + ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib added $2252 in costs and yielded 0.60 QALYs compared to cabozantinib followed by nivolumab, yielding an ICER of $4184. Limitations include differences in median follow-up duration between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib were cost-effective treatment sequences for patients with favorable-risk mRCC. Nivolumab +ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib was the most cost-effective treatment sequence for patients with intermediate-/poor-risk mRCC, dominating all preferred treatments.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Because new treatments for kidney cancer have not been compared head to head, comparison of their cost and efficacy can help in making decisions about the best treatments to use first. Our model showed that patients with a favorable risk profile are most likely to benefit from pembrolizumab and lenvatinib or axitinib followed by cabozantinib, while patients with an intermediate or poor risk profile will probably benefit most from nivolumab and ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib.

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma trials using combinations versus sunitinib as first-line treatment

Over the past 5 years, several new immunotherapy treatments have been tested for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Clinical trials assessing combinations of different immunotherapies, or of an immunotherapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), have reported improved clinical outcomes compared with the standard of care - that is, treatments using TKIs alone. However, to understand the holistic impact of new treatments on patients, physicians must also consider effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on HRQoL are often treated as a secondary outcome in clinical trials, their collection and reporting are non-standardized and, therefore, difficult to compare and interpret. However, results from six clinical trials indicate that two immunotherapy treatments overwhelmingly outperform sunitinib in HRQoL measurements: nivolumab plus cabozantinib (CheckMate 9ER) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (IMmotion151). An additional two treatments generally outperform sunitinib: nivolumab plus ipilimumab (CheckMate 214) and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (CLEAR). Of three studies that reported no difference from sunitinib, two suffered design flaws that might have obscured HRQoL benefits (JAVELIN Renal 101 and KEYNOTE-426). To ensure future HRQoL data are of the highest quality and comparable across trials, future studies should adopt best practices for the design, analysis and reporting of PROMs.

Hyponatremia and Cancer: From Bedside to Benchside

Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disorder encountered in hospitalized patients. This applies also to cancer patients. Multiple causes can lead to hyponatremia, but most frequently this electrolyte disorder is due to the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuresis. In cancer patients, this syndrome is mostly secondary to ectopic secretion of arginine vasopressin by tumoral cells. In addition, several chemotherapeutic drugs induce the release of arginine vasopressin by the hypothalamus. There is evidence that hyponatremia is associated to a more negative outcome in several pathologies, including cancer. Many studies have demonstrated that in different cancer types, both progression-free survival and overall survival are negatively affected by hyponatremia, whereas the correction of serum [Na⁺] has a positive effect on patient outcome. In vitro studies have shown that cells grown in low [Na⁺] have a greater proliferation rate and motility, due to a dysregulation in intracellular signalling pathways. Noteworthy, vasopressin receptors antagonists, which were approved more than a decade ago for the treatment of euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremia, have shown unexpected antiproliferative effects. Because of this property, vaptans were also approved for the treatment of polycystic kidney disease. In vitro evidence indicated that this family of drugs effectively counteracts proliferation and invasivity of cancer cells, thus possibly opening a new scenario among the pharmacological strategies to treat cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy Plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

Objective

Avelumab (MSB0010718C) is a fully human anti-programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) antibody against PD-L1 interactions and enhances immune activation against tumor cells in the meantime. Avelumab has been approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after disease progression in several countries. We therefore conducted this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or mUC from the perspective of the United States (US) and China payer.

Methods

A Markov simulation model was performed based on clinical trial JAVELIN Bladder 100. Utilities and costs adopted in this analysis were derived from published literature and clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the avelumab maintenance therapy group (AVE group) and the best supportive care group (CON group).

Results

The ICER of the AVE group compared with the CON group were $38,369.50 and $16,150.29 per QALYs in the overall population and in the PD-L1–positive population, respectively. While the ICER of AVE group compared with CON group were $241,610.25 and $100,528.29 per QALYs in the overall population and in the PD-L1–positive population, respectively.

Conclusion

Avelumab maintenance therapy was a cost-effective first-line treatment compared with BSC in patients with mUC which were not progressed with platinum-based chemotherapy not only in the PD-L1–positive population but also in the overall population based on the current willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 in the US. It was not cost-effective both in the overall population and in the PD-L1 positive population at the WTP threshold of $30,447.09 in China.

Copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy vs. rituximab monotherapy for relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

In the clinical use of third-line treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), the combination treatment is increasingly used due to problems such as drug resistance, and while their efficacy has been proven, whether they are economical has become a new issue. A recent trial showed copanlisib plus rituximab combination therapy (CRCT) had better efficacy in the treatment of relapsed indolent NHL (iNHL) compared to rituximab monotherapy (RM). However, the long-term cost and effectiveness of this regimen is not known. We are the first to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CRCT in third-line treatment of relapsed iNHL from the perspective of US payers.

Methods

We used a Markov model to evaluate cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) which included a population from CHRONOS-3 with mean age of 62.5 years and total cycle length of 16.3 years. The cycle length was 1 month, adverse reaction rates were from CHRONOS-3, mean body surface area was referenced from published literature, cost values are referenced from published literature and Drugbank, utility values were referenced from the published literature, and the primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was set at $150,000 per QALYs, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to verify the robustness of the model. All costs are expressed in 2021 dollars and costs and utilities have been calculated at a discount rate of 3% per year.

Results

CRCT and RM obtained 6.53 QALYs and 5.15 QALYs, respectively, and the ICER of CRCT vs. RM was $358,895.2/QALYs. Parameters having the greatest impact on the robustness of the model were the drug cost of copanlisib and the utility value of the progression-free survival (PFS) state. When the WTP threshold was $150,000, the probability of CRCT and RM being the most cost effective was 0.4% and 99.6% respectively.

Conclusions

From a US payer perspective, CRCT is not cost-effective in treating relapsed iNHL at current prices compared to RM. But given its positive clinical efficacy, appropriate price discounts or assistance programs should be considered to make CRCT more affordable to patients with relapsed iNHL.

Cost-effectiveness of enfortumab vedotin in previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Antibody-drug conjugates have recently been introduced as a treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. The EV-301 study demonstrated that enfortumab vedotin (EV) improved overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy. To assess the cost-effectiveness of EV for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) from a payer perspective in middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

A decision analysis model was developed to assess the efficacy and economic viability of EV as a subsequent-line treatment following disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma already treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Clinical and utility values were obtained from the published literature and available databases. Cost data were obtained from payer perspectives in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in comparison to willingness-to-pay in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, EV increased the benefit by 0.16-0.17 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $2,168,746.71, $2,164,494.38, and $1,775,576.56 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the largest effect on outcome was the utility value for progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of EV being cost-effective was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

EV provides an additional health benefit over chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma but is not cost-effective from a payer perspective in the United States, United Kingdom, or China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

Background: In a recent randomized, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 9ER), nivolumab combined with cabozantinib significantly improved patient outcomes compared with sunitinib. However, the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unknown.

Materials and Methods: We constructed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to measure the healthcare costs and outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with those of sunitinib for patients with aRCC. The transition probability of patients was calculated from CheckMate 9ER using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib treatment compared with sunitinib from a US payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a series of scenario analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with an improvement of 0.59 LYs and 0.56 QALYs compared with sunitinib. However, incorporating nivolumab plus cabozantinib into first-line treatment was associated with significantly higher lifetime costs ($483,352.70 vs. $198,320.10), causing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab plus cabozantinib to be $508,987/QALY. The patients’ age of treatment, first-line utility, and cost of nivolumab had the greatest influence on the model. The outcomes were robust when tested in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion: For aRCC, substituting nivolumab plus cabozantinib in the first-line setting is unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY). Significant price decreases for nivolumab used in first-line therapy would be needed to drop ICERs to a more diffusely acceptable value.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to CheckMate 9ER study.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. Primary outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model uncertainty was assessed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The total cost per patient was $681,425 for nivolumab plus cabozantinib and $256,302 for sunitinib. The incremental QALY for nivolumab plus cabozantinib was 0.49 compared with sunitinib. The ICER for nivolumab plus cabozantinib was $863,720 per QALY gained versus sunitinib. The results remained robust in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was not cost-effective under current drug pricing in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC from a US payer's perspective.

HIF2α promotes tumour growth in clear cell renal cell carcinoma by increasing the expression of NUDT1 to reduce oxidative stress

BACKGROUND

The key role of hypoxia-inducible factor 2alpha (HIF2α) in the process of renal cancer has been confirmed. In the field of tumour research, oxidative stress is also considered to be an important influencing factor. However, the relationship and biological benefits of oxidative stress and HIF2α in ccRCC remain unclear. This research attempts to explore the effect of oxidative stress on the cancer-promoting effect of HIF2α in ccRCC and reveal its mechanism of action.

METHODS

The bioinformatics analysis for ccRCC is based on whole transcriptome sequencing and TCGA database. The detection of the expression level of related molecules is realised by western blot and PCR. The expression of Nucleoside diphosphate-linked moiety X-type motif 1 (NUDT1) was knocked down by lentiviral infection technology. The functional role of NUDT1 were further investigated by CCK8 assays, transwell assays and cell oxidative stress indicator detection. The exploration of related molecular mechanisms is realised by Luciferase assays and Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays.

RESULTS

Molecular screening based on knockdown HIF2α sequencing data and oxidative stress related data sets showed that NUDT1 is considered to be an important molecule for the interaction of HIF2α with oxidative stress. Subsequent experimental results showed that NUDT1 can cooperate with HIF2α to promote the progression of ccRCC. And this biological effect was found to be caused by the oxidative stress regulated by NUDT1. Mechanistically, HIF2α transcription activates the expression of NUDT1, thereby inhibiting oxidative stress and promoting the progression of ccRCC.

CONCLUSIONS

This research clarified a novel mechanism by which HIF2α stabilises sirtuin 3 (SIRT3) through direct transcriptional activation of NUDT1, thereby inhibiting oxidative stress to promote the development of ccRCC. It provided the possibility for the selection of new therapeutic targets for ccRCC and the study of combination medication regimens.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

Sequences of biological treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the era of treat-to-target in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended to be added in sequentially in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). All these drugs, however, are substantially more expensive than conventional synthetic DMARDs throughout the world, including in China. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of bDMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

An individual patient simulation model was used to track the course of patients from first treatment through switches to further lines in a sequence. The comparator treatment sequence commenced with methotrexate, followed by non-biologic therapy. The intervention sequences were assumed to be the combinations of bDMARDs available, followed by non-biologic therapy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared with the comparator treatment sequence, bDMARDs sequences were associated with more life years, QALYs, and cost. These produced ICERs ranged from $27,441.36/QALY to $40,149.2/QALY, above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,378 per QALY. The uncertainty analyses and the scenario analyses confirmed the result of the base case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, bDMARDs sequences are estimated not to be cost-effective compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe RA at a WTP threshold of $10,378 per QALY. Price reductions are warranted to make bDMARDs cost-effective and affordable.

Metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma: computed tomography texture analysis as predictive biomarkers of survival in patients treated with nivolumab

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the value of image-based texture analysis for predicting progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma (cCCR) treated with nivolumab.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 48 patients with metastatic cCCR treated with nivolumab. Nivolumab was used as a second- or third-line monotherapy. Texture analysis of metastatic lesions was performed on CT scanners obtained within 1 month before treatment. Texture features related to the gray-level histogram, gray-level co-occurrence, run-length matrix features, autoregressive model features, and Haar wavelet feature were extracted. Lasso penalized Cox regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of PFS and OS.

RESULTS

Median PFS and OS were 5.7 and 13.8 months. 39 patients experienced progression and 27 died. The Lasso penalized Cox regression analysis identified three texture parameters as potential predictors of PFS: skewness, S.2.2. Correlat and S.1.1. SumVarnc. Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed skewness (HR (95% CI) 1.49 [1.21-1.85], p < 0.001) as an independent predictor of PFS. Regarding OS, the Lasso penalized Cox regression analysis identified three texture parameters as potential predictors of OS: S20SumVarnc, S22Contrast and S22Entropy. Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed S22Entropy (HR (95% CI) 1.68 (1.31-2.14), p < 0.001) as an independent predictor of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this preliminary study suggest that CT texture analysis might be a promising quantitative imaging tool that predicts oncological outcomes after starting nivolumab treatment.

First-line Daratumumab in Addition to Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients Who are Transplant Ineligible: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

Daratumumab is a standard-of-care treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). According to the ALCYONE trial, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) provides significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) in patients with NDMM. However, considering the high price of daratumumab, it is necessary to conduct further research on its efficacy and cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness, from the US payer perspective, of D-VMP vs VMP in the first-line setting for patients with NDMM who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of VMP with or without daratumumab as the first-line therapy for patients with NDMM. Univariable sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to address the model robustness and uncertainty. Expected value of perfect information analysis was conducted to explore the uncertainty of decision-making and future costs.

FINDINGS

D-VMP provides an additional 2.417 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at a cost of $30,893 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the transition probability of progression-free survival in D-VMP strategy, the price of daratumumab, and body weight of the patient influenced the model results most strongly. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that D-VMP versus VMP has a 90.8% probability of being cost-effective at the $150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The population expected value of perfect information was $2150 million at a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY and $1481 million at $100,000/QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

In this study, D-VMP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with VMP for patients with NDMM at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. (Clin Ther. 2021;43:XXX-XXX) © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Urothelial Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The IMvigor130 trial found that atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (atezolizumab group) as first-line therapy prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), compared with placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (placebo group). The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for mUC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab and placebo group in the first-line setting of patients with mUC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Subgroup, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model robustness.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab group provided an additional 0.39 QALYs (0.52 LYs) and an incremental cost of $170,759 per QALY compared with the placebo group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $434,317 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that PD-L1 expression of at least 5% on immune cells had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $325,236 per QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that our model was sensitive to the cycle cost of atezolizumab and the hazard ratio of PFS. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that there was 0% probability of the atezolizumab group being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The extrapolations need to be validated by real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer perspective, atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy is not cost-effective in the first-line therapy for patients with mUC on the basis of a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. On the basis of the value standpoint, price reduction of atezolizumab is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in patients with mUC.

Identification METTL18 as a Potential Prognosis Biomarker and Associated With Immune Infiltrates in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Methyltransferase-like 18 (METTL18), a METTL family member, is abundant in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Studies have indicated the METTL family could regulate the progress of diverse malignancies while the role of METTL18 in HCC remains unclear. Data of HCC patients were acquired from the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) and gene expression omnibus (GEO). The expression level of METTL18 in HCC patients was compared with normal liver tissues by Wilcoxon test. Then, the logistic analysis was used to estimate the correlation between METTL18 and clinicopathological factors. Besides, Gene Ontology (GO), Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), and single-sample Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (ssGSEA) were used to explore relevant functions and quantify the degree of immune infiltration for METTL18. Univariate and Multivariate Cox analyses and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to estimate the association between METTL18 and prognosis. Besides, by cox multivariate analysis, a nomogram was conducted to forecast the influence of METTL18 on survival rates. METTL18-high was associated with Histologic grade, T stage, Pathologic stage, BMI, Adjacent hepatic tissue inflammation, AFP, Vascular invasion, and TP53 status (P < 0.05). HCC patients with METTL18-high had a poor Overall-Survival [OS; hazard ratio (HR): 1.87, P < 0.001), Disease-Specific Survival (DSS, HR: 1.76, P = 0.015), and Progression-Free Interval (PFI, HR: 1.51, P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that METTL18 was an independent factor for OS (HR: 2.093, P < 0.001), DSS (HR: 2.404, P = 0.015), and PFI (HR: 1.133, P = 0.006). Based on multivariate analysis, the calibration plots and C-indexes of nomograms showed an efficacious predictive effect for HCC patients. GSEA demonstrated that METTL18-high could activate G2M checkpoint, E2F targets, KRAS signaling pathway, and Mitotic Spindle. There was a positive association between the METTL18 and abundance of innate immunocytes (T helper 2 cells) and a negative relation to the abundance of adaptive immunocytes (Dendritic cells, Cytotoxic cells etc.). Finally, we uncovered knockdown of METTL18 significantly suppressed the proliferation, invasion, and migration of HCC cells in vitro. This research indicates that METTL18 could be a novel biomarker to evaluate HCC patients' prognosis and an important regulator of immune responses in HCC.

Clinical outcomes and influencing factors of PD-1/PD-L1 in hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has an increasing incidence worldwide, and the global 5-year survival rate ranges from 5-30%. In China, HCC seriously threatens the nation's health; the incidence of HCC ranks fourth among all theriomas, and the mortality rate is the third highest worldwide. The main therapies for HCC are surgical treatment or liver transplantation; however, most patients with HCC will experience postoperative recurrence or metastasis, eventually resulting in mortality. As for advanced or unresectable HCC, the current appropriate treatment strategy is transarterial chemoembolization; however, limited therapeutic effect and natural or acquired drug resistance affect the efficacy of this approach. Previous studies have demonstrated that PD-L1 expression on host cells and myeloid cells plays an important role in PD-L1 blocked-mediated tumor regression. Thus, further research on programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) is required. Countries including the United States, France, Britain and China have developed PD-1/PD-L1 blockers, including nivolumab, pembrolizumab, cemiplimab, atezolizumab, avelumab, durvalumab, toripalimab, sintilimab and camrelizumab. Notably, all of these blockers have therapeutic effect and influencing factors in HCC. Factors that influence the clinical outcome of PD-1 have also been discovered, such as inflammatory genes, specific receptors and signaling pathways. The discovery of these factors will help to identify novel methods, such as combination treatment, to decrease the influence of other factors on the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1. Sorafenib and lenvatinib have been approved for first-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC. When first-line treatment frequently fails, pembrolizumab and ipilimumab plus nivolumab are used following sorafenib (but not lenvatinib) treatment in advanced HCC. Thus, tumor immunotherapy using PD-1/PD-L1 blockers exhibits promising outcomes for the treatment of HCC, and more novel PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are being developed to fight against this disease. The present review discusses the clinical results and influencing factors of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in HCC to provide insight into the development and optimization of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of HCC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Immunotherapy Treatments for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Kidney cancer exerts significant disease burden in the United States and possesses a rapidly evolving treatment landscape. The expansion of novel systemic treatment approaches and the use of immunotherapy has been accompanied by increased costs over time. However, the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been fully assessed. The current study presents a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of immunotherapy-based treatment in the context of RCC. METHODS: A literature search utilizing PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was undertaken to find articles related to the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The inclusion criteria for articles were as follows: English, published between 1983 and 2020 and evaluated cost-effectiveness in any of the currently approved immunotherapies for RCC. Exclusion criteria included being a review article, commentary or editorial, as well as possessing no specific cost-effectiveness evaluation or analysis relevant to the current review. RESULTS: The current review identified 23 studies, published between 2008 and 2020, across 9 different countries. The studies identified tended to focus on patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC and examined the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy across various lines of treatment (first-line treatment (n = 13), second-line treatment (n = 8), and first-line and beyond (n = 2). Eight studies examined the use of interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha), with some reports supporting the cost-effectiveness of these agents and an equal number of studies demonstrating the opposite, with sunitinib often demonstrating superior cost bases. The majority, fourteen studies, included the use of novel immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab), half of which found that checkpoint inhibitors were more cost-effective when compared to oral systemic therapies (sunitinib, everolimus, axitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib). DISCUSSION: Novel immune checkpoint inhibitors constituted the most frequently examined agents and were likely to be deemed cost-effective as compared to other treatments; although this often required higher willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds or healthcare systems that possessed more cost-constraints. These observations have clinical and health system applicability, with the ability to potentially reduce the cost of treatment for locally advanced or metastatic RCC.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib and Versus Avelumab Plus Axitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There now exist several viable first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, making the choice of initial therapy difficult. Considering metrics other than patient factors may be necessary to select the most appropriate therapy. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three combination therapies currently approved in treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma-nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), and avelumab + axitinib (AA)-from a US payer perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our analysis was performed based on previously obtained data derived from progression-free survival and overall survival curves from CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, and JAVELIN Renal 101.

RESULTS

The total costs of each treatment were found to be $437,556.12 for NI, $450,597.15 for PA, and $542,882.34 for AA, with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 4.04, 3.77, and 2.95 for each combination, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NI versus PA was ($47,504.73/QALY); for NI versus AA, it was ($96,533.11/QALY); for PA versus AA, it was ($113,015.87/QALY). Net health benefit scaled against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was positive for NI versus PA at 0.36 and versus AA at 1.79, and this index was also positive for PA versus AA at 1.43, indicating that the additional value of these therapies versus their alternatives is greater than the extra cost.

CONCLUSION

NI was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option compared with the other considered therapies. PA was found to be cost effective compared to AA. When patient factors such as social issues and pre-existing conditions do not dictate their first-line therapy, clinicians may use this additional information to make financially conscious choices.

Photoswitchable CAR-T Cell Function In Vitro and In Vivo via a Cleavable Mediator

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-based therapeutics are a breakthrough in cancer treatment; however, they are hampered by constitutive activation, which leads to worrisome side effects. Engineering CAR-T cells to be as tightly controllable as possible remains a topic of ongoing investigation. Here, we report a photoswitchable approach that uses a mediator for the at-will regulation of CAR-T cells. This mediator carries dual folate and fluorescein isothiocyanate moieties tethered by an ortho-nitrobenzyl ester photocleavable linker. CAR-T cells were shown to be highly cytotoxic to targeted cells only in the presence of the mediator and acted in a dose-dependent manner. The toxicity of CAR-T cells can be rapidly terminated by cleavage of the mediator, and the effects of CAR-T cells can be activated again by resupplementation with the mediator without compromising tumor therapy. The approach described here provides a direction for enhancing the controllability of CAR-T cells and can likely be applied in other immunotherapies.

Economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy: a systematic review and quality evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Scientific advances in the last decade have highlighted the use of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, to be an effective strategy in cancer therapy. However, these immunotherapeutic agents are expensive, and their use must take into account economic criteria. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published EE related to the use of ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab in melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer or renal cell carcinoma, and to assess their quality.

METHODS

The systematic literature research was conducted on Medline via PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify economic evaluations published before July 2018. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

Our systematic review was based on 32 economic evaluations using different methodological approaches, different perspectives and different time horizons. Three-quarters of the economic evaluations are full (n = 24) with a Drummond score ≥ 7, synonymous of "high quality". Among them, 66% reported a strategy that was cost-effective. The most assessed immunotherapeutic agent was nivolumab. In patients with renal cell carcinoma or head and neck cancer, it was less likely to be cost-effective than in patients with melanoma or lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether or not these findings will be confirmed remains to be seen when market approval to cover more indications is extended and new effective immunotherapeutic agents become available.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Sequencing Systemic Therapy Pathways for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer worldwide and carries a poor prognosis. Historically, sorafenib was the only available systemic treatment for advanced HCC. However, in recent years, 6 new treatments have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and nivolumab. Data are lacking regarding the most appropriate sequencing pathway for these agents. Our objective was to conduct a comprehensive cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment pathways for HCC reflecting all new drug approvals, and then use our data to provide guidance for clinicians on which pathway is the most cost-effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Markov models were used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 8 different 1st- and 2nd-line treatment sequences. The model allowed for 9 possible states. Cost effectiveness ratios (CER) and incremental CER (ICER) were calculated to compare costs between different pathways and against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Efficacy and toxicity data were extracted from the landmark trials for each agent. All agents except ramucirumab were included. The cost of each agent was based on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) in USD as of June 2019. Monte-Carlo methods were used to simulate the experience of 1,000,000 patients per treatment sequence for a 12-month period.

RESULTS

The pathway with the lowest CER was sorafenib, followed by pembrolizumab (USD 227,741.03/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). ICER analysis supported implementing 2nd-line pembrolizumab-based pathways at a higher WTP threshold of 300,000/quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis did not substantially change these results.

CONCLUSIONS

The most cost-effective strategy was 1st-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy followed by 2nd-line immunotherapy. All pathways exceeded a commonly accepted WTP of USD 100-150,000/QALY. Our preliminary results warrant further studies to best inform real-world practices.

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background:

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting.

Methods:

Trials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer’s perspective. The key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the NMA, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Results:

Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3758 patients receiving first-line ICIs treatment were analyzed. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was ranked higher than the other three ICI regimens and sunitinib in the overall population. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib achieved more health benefits than the other ICI regimens and sunitinib in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and negative tumors, respectively. Among the four ICI regimens, only the ICERs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib were lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY) in the overall and PD-L1-positive populations, and none of four ICI regimens were lower than $150,000/QALY in PD-L1-negative populations.

Conclusions:

The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab is the most favorable first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive aRCC compared with other ICI regimens and sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is likely to be an alternative for PD-L1-negative aRCC due to its more favorable health advantages.

EPHA5 mutation predicts the durable clinical benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with lung adenocarcinoma

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has shown remarkable clinical benefit in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients. Genomic mutations may be applicable to predict the response to ICIs. Eph receptor A5 (EPHA5) is frequently mutated in breast cancer, lung cancer, and other tumors; however, its association with outcome in patients who receive immunotherapy remains unknown. In this study, we report that EPHA5 mutations were associated with increased tumor mutation burden (TMB), neoantigen load, levels of immune-related gene expression signatures, and enhanced tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in LUAD. LUAD patients with EPHA5 mutations in the immunotherapy cohort achieved a longer progression-free survival (PFS) time than patients with wild-type EPHA5. Immune response pathways were among the top enriched pathways in samples with EPHA5 mutations. In addition, patients with EPHA5 mutations tended to be more sensitive to certain targeted molecular inhibitors, including serdemetan, lox2, and PF1-1. Collectively, our results suggest that identifying mutations in the EPHA5 gene may provide insight into the genome-wide mutational burden and may serve as a biomarker to predict the immune response of patients with LUAD.

Clinical outcomes of second-line treatment following prior targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of axitinib and nivolumab

BACKGROUND

Sequential treatment starting with target therapy is still the standard care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), even in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our objective was to compare the clinical outcomes between axitinib and nivolumab as second-line therapy following prior targeted therapy in mRCC patients.

METHODS

We identified 41 patients treated with axitinib and 39 patients treated with nivolumab as a second-line regimen after targeted therapy, and retrospectively compared the treatment efficacy and safety in these patients.

RESULTS

The clinical benefit rate of axitinib was significantly higher than that of nivolumab (82.9% versus 56.4%; p = 0.014) and patients who received axitinib tended to show longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those who received nivolumab (10.3 months versus 7.3 months; p = 0.067). There was no difference in the overall survival (OS) of the two groups (both not reached; p = 0.581). The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) was similar between the two groups, but one patient in the nivolumab group died due to an immune-related AE. In addition, a Cox proportional hazards model showed that the pre-treatment KPS, the baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and an objective response in second-line therapy were significantly associated with PFS, while the pre-treatment KPS, the number of metastatic organs, and an objective response in second-line therapy significantly contributed to the predicted OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the prognosis did not differ markedly between the two groups, axitinib resulted in a better tumor response rate. Further randomized prospective studies are needed for the ideal order of this sequential treatment.

Systemic therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Emerging challenges in therapeutic choice

The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has undergone a substantial evolution in the past decade, with a dramatic increase in the number of available systemic therapies. Although this offers promise for improved patient outcomes, this rapid pace in development has led to new challenges in therapeutic choice. For instance, the absence of direct comparative evidence across all therapeutic options has led to a critical gap in evidence to clearly define preferred systemic therapy choice. Additionally, the rising cost of systemic therapies being evaluated for mRCC necessitates demonstration of cost-effectiveness prior to widespread adoption. This review provides an overview of the current treatment landscape in mRCC to highlight the emerging challenges faced by clinicians and health policy-makers. In addition, this review summarizes the currently available evidence that aims to address the above challenges.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: First-Line Avelumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

Background

Compared with the standard of care with sunitinib, avelumab plus axitinib can increase progression-free survival in the first-line of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but the economic effect of the treatment is unknown. The purpose of the research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced RCC from the US payer perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the economic and health outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for advanced RCC. The clinical data were obtained from the JAVELIN Renal 101 Clinical Trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the model. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib was $565,232 per QALY, the costs were $884,626 and $669,838, QALYs were 3.67 and 3.29, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that differences in utilities in PFS and after progression were the most influential factors within the model. When avelumab was at 30% of the full price or axitinib was at 40% of the full price, avelumab and axitinib were approved to be cost-effective if the WTP threshold was $150,000 per QALY. The subgroup analysis showed the ICER of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for the patients with PD-L1–positive tumors was $588,105.

Conclusion

Avelumab plus axitinib in the first-line treatment was not cost-effective in comparison with sunitinib when the threshold of willingness to pay (WTP) was $150,000 per QALY.

Oncogenic effects of RAB27B through exosome independent function in renal cell carcinoma including sunitinib-resistant

Exosomes are 40–100 nm nano-sized extracellular vesicles. They are released from many cell types and move into the extracellular space, thereby transferring their components to recipient cells. Exosomes are receiving increasing attention as novel structures participating in intracellular communication. RAB27B is one of the leading proteins involved in exosome secretion, and oncogenic effects have been reported in several cancers. In recent years, molecularly targeted agents typified by sunitinib are widely used for the treatment of metastatic or recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, intrinsic or acquired resistance to sunitinib has become a major issue. The present study aimed to elucidate the role of RAB27B in RCC including sunitinib-resistant and its role in exosomes. Bioinformatic analyses revealed that high expression of RAB27B correlates with progression of RCC. The expression of RAB27B protein in RCC cell lines was significantly enhanced compared with that in normal kidney cell lines. Furthermore, RAB27B protein expression was enhanced in all of the tested sunitinib-resistant RCC cell lines compared to parental cells. Although no specific effect of RAB27B on exosomes was identified in RCC cells, loss-of-function studies demonstrated that knockdown of RAB27B suppressed cell proliferation, migration and invasive activities. Moreover, anti-tumor effects of RAB27B downregulation were also observed in sunitinib-resistant RCC cells. RNA sequence and pathway analysis suggested that the oncogenic effects of RAB27B might be associated with MAPK and VEGF signaling pathways. These results showed that RAB27B is a prognostic marker and a novel therapeutic target in sunitinib-sensitive and -resistant RCCs. Further analyses should improve our understanding of sunitinib resistance in RCC.

First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Recently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib in First-line Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), the KEYNOTE-426 study demonstrated a significant progression-free survival and overall survival for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in comparison with sunitinib. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for previously untreated patients with aRCC in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and health outcomes of treatment of aRCC with sunitinib or pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Additional subgroup analyses were also performed. The primary outputs of the model included the total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib provided an additional 2.461 LYs (1.650 QALYs). The total cost per patient was US$178,725 for pembrolizumab plus axitinib and US$87,693 for sunitinib. The ICER for pembrolizumab plus axitinib was US$55,185/QALY versus sunitinib. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to pembrolizumab cost and overall hazard ratio. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than US$32,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is not likely to be cost effective versus sunitinib for patients with previously untreated aRCC at a threshold value of US$29,306/QALY.

Rational Approaches to Treatment Duration with Immunotherapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The appropriate duration for ICI treatment is not clear, however. Analyses of landmark trials reveal that some patients exhibit sustained durable responses to ICIs even after treatment discontinuation, resulting in prolonged treatment-free intervals that can mitigate potential toxicities and the considerable financial burden associated with treatment. Adaptive approaches with PD1 monotherapy and combination immunotherapy tailored to tumor response are ongoing. More efforts will be needed to clarify the ideal ICI dosing regimen to maximize oncological benefit while minimizing treatment-related adverse effects and costs. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed considerations surrounding treatment strategies when using immunotherapy to treat patients with kidney cancer. It is clear that some patients can experience prolonged cancer control when discontinuing immunotherapy. However, individualized approaches will be necessary to strike a balance between optimizing patient outcomes and reducing unnecessary side effects and cost.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Levels

To evaluate the cost–utility of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as the first-line setting for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US health care system perspective, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for untreated metastatic NSCLC, based on the clinical data derived from phase III randomized controlled trial (KEYNOTE-042; ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02220894). Weibull distribution was fitted to simulate the parametric survival functions. Drug costs were collected from official websites, and utility values were obtained from published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed as primary output indicators. The impact of different PD-L1 expression levels on ICER was also evaluated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model uncertainty. Compared with chemotherapy, patients treated with pembrolizumab provided an additional 1.13, 1.01, and 0.59 QALYs in patients with PD-L1 expression levels of ≥50%, ≥20%, and ≥1%, with corresponding incremental cost of $53,784, $47,479, and $39,827, respectively. The resultant ICERs of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy were $47,596, $47,184, and $68,061/QALY, in three expression levels of PD-L1, respectively, all of which did not exceed the WTP threshold of 180,000/QALY. Probability sensitivity analysis outcome supported that pembrolizumab exhibited evident advantage over chemotherapy to be cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis found that ICERs were most sensitive to utility value of pembrolizumab in progression survival state. All the adjustment of parameters did not qualitatively change the result. For treatment-naive, metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1⁺, pembrolizumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for all PD-L1 expression levels at a WTP threshold of $180,000/QALY in the context of the US health care system.

Treatment sequences for advanced renal cell carcinoma: A health economic assessment

Objective

Advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is commonly treated with vascular endothelial growth factor or mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors. As new therapies emerge, interest grows in gaining a deeper understanding of treatment sequences. Recently, we developed a patient-level, discretely integrated condition event (DICE) simulation to estimate survival and lifetime costs for various cancer therapies, using a US payer perspective. Using this model, we explored the impact of treatments such as nivolumab and cabozantinib, and compared the clinical outcomes and cost consequences of commonly used treatment algorithms for patients with advanced RCC.

Methods

Included treatment sequences were pazopanib or sunitinib as first-line treatment, followed by nivolumab, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib or everolimus. Efficacy inputs were derived from the CheckMate 025 trial and a network meta-analysis based on available literature. Safety and cost data were obtained from publicly available sources or literature.

Results

Based on our analysis, the average cost per life-year (LY) was lowest for sequences including nivolumab (sunitinib → nivolumab, $75,268/LY; pazopanib → nivolumab, $84,459/LY) versus axitinib, pazopanib, everolimus and cabozantinib as second-line treatments. Incremental costs per LY gained were $49,592, $73,927 and $30,534 for nivolumab versus axitinib, pazopanib and everolimus-containing sequences, respectively. The model suggests that nivolumab offers marginally higher life expectancy at a lower cost versus cabozantinib-including sequences.

Conclusion

Treatment sequences using nivolumab in the second-line setting are less costly compared with sequential use of targeted agents. In addition to efficacy and safety data, cost considerations may be taken into account when considering treatment algorithms for patients with advanced RCC.

Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: An Analysis of Reimbursement Decisions

INTRODUCTION

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma is a complex cancer for which several drugs have been developed over the years. More recently, drugs that target the specific cancer cell mutations have been developed for metastatic cell carcinoma. However, even with the recent influx of targeted therapy options, significant unmet needs exist in around half of treated renal cell carcinoma patients following the failure of first-line therapy. The aim of this study was to review the health technology appraisals of renal cell carcinoma treatments in several countries to establish what factors might affect the reimbursement decisions.

METHODS

The reimbursement data for 10 drugs in several countries were collated from the health technology assessment bodies for each country. The data included information on clinical trials used in the submission documents for the health technology assessment, the reimbursement decisions and the reasons for those decisions, as well as any specific restrictions for use of any of the included drugs.

RESULTS

Of the 10 drugs reviewed, only everolimus received a positive reimbursement decision by all the health technology assessment bodies included in the study. The most common reason for a negative reimbursement decision was lack of demonstration of cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Another frequently cited reason was unproven clinical efficacy and poor impact on overall survival.

CONCLUSION

Despite the many treatment guidelines and current treatment options that are available for renal cell carcinoma, there remains an unmet need in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On the basis of this analysis, the key reason for a drug not obtaining a positive reimbursement decision is due to poor efficacy or uncertainty of the drug's efficacy.

FUNDING

Eisai, Inc.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer in China

PURPOSE

Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1 mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.

Economic Burden of Renal Cell Carcinoma-Part I: An Updated Review

BACKGROUND

The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been reported to be significant in a previous review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to perform an updated review by synthesizing economic studies related to the treatment of RCC that have been published since the previous review.

METHODS

We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies published between June 2010 and August 2018. We categorized these articles by type of analyses [cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost analysis, and cost of illness (COI)] and treatment setting (cancer status and treatment), discussed findings from these articles, and synthesized information from each article in summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 52 studies from 2317 abstracts/titles deemed relevant from the initial search, including 21 CEA, 23 cost analysis, and 8 COI studies. For localized RCC, costs were found to be positively associated with the aggressiveness of the local treatment. For metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib was reported to be cost effective in the first-line setting. We also found that the economic burden of RCC has increased over time.

CONCLUSION

RCC continues to impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Despite the large number of treatment alternatives now available for advanced RCC, the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of many new agents remain unknown and warrant greater attention in future research.

Potential tumor‑suppressive role of microRNA‑99a‑3p in sunitinib‑resistant renal cell carcinoma cells through the regulation of RRM2

Sunitinib is the most common primary molecular‑targeted agent for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC); however, intrinsic or acquired sunitinib resistance has become a significant problem in medical practice. The present study focused on microRNA (miR)‑99a‑3p, which was significantly downregulated in clinical sunitinib‑resistant ccRCC tissues in previous screening analyses, and investigated the molecular network associated with it. The expression levels of miR‑99a‑3p and its candidate target genes were evaluated in RCC cells, including previously established sunitinib‑resistant 786‑o (SU‑R‑786‑o) cells, and clinical ccRCC tissues, using reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Gain‑of‑function studies demonstrated that miR‑99a‑3p significantly suppressed cell proliferation and colony formation in RCC cells, including the SU‑R‑786‑o cells, by inducing apoptosis. Based on in silico analyses and RNA sequencing data, followed by luciferase reporter assays, ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit‑M2 (RRM2) was identified as a direct target of miR‑99a‑3p in the SU‑R‑786‑o cells. Loss‑of‑function studies using small interfering RNA against RRM2 revealed that cell proliferation and colony growth were significantly inhibited via induction of apoptosis, particularly in the SU‑R‑786‑o cells. Furthermore, the RRM2 inhibitor Didox (3,4‑dihydroxybenzohydroxamic acid) exhibited anticancer effects in the SU‑R‑786‑o cells and other RCC cells. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report demonstrating that miR‑99a‑3p directly regulates RRM2. Identifying novel genes targeted by tumor‑suppressive miR‑99a‑3p in sunitinib‑resistant RCC cells may improve our understanding of intrinsic or acquired resistance and facilitate the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Intermediate- to Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The treatment paradigm of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed rapidly in recent years. In first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk patients, the CheckMate 214 study demonstrated a significant survival advantage for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib. The high cost of combined immune-modulating agents warrants an understanding of the combination's value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC from the U.S. payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2017. We extrapolated survival beyond the trial closure using Weibull distribution. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The total mean cost per-patient of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib was $292,308 and $169,287, respectfully. Nivolumab and ipilimumab generated a gain of 0.978 QALYs over sunitinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab and ipilimumab was $125,739/QALY versus sunitinib.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis established that the base case ICER in the model for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib is below what some would consider the upper limit of the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S. ($150,000/QALY) and is thus estimated to be cost-effective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This article assessed the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib for treatment of patients with intermediate- to poor-risk metastatic kidney cancer, from the U.S. payer perspective. It would cost $125,739 to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib in these patients.

Cancer du rein métastatique : quels critères de choix en 2e ligne ?

METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

HOW TO CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE SECOND-LINE TREATMENT?: The treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) has dramatically improved in the past ten years. In the second-line setting, for patients who progressed on prior antiangiogenic therapy (mainly the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib or pazopanib), axitinib and everolimus have been recommended. Since 2015, other drugs have proven their efficacy and are currently considered the standard of care: cabozantinib (TKI that targets VEGFR, MET and AXL) and nivolumab (first anti-PD-1 check point inhibitor). Lenvatinib has also demonstrated promising results in association with everolimus, but this combination is not available in France. The optimal treatment choice for a given patient is challenging for the clinician when facing multiple options. In this article, we review the efficacy, safety and quality of life results of the main pivotal clinical studies involving advanced or metastatic RCC in the second-line setting, to help clinicians in selecting the most appropriate treatment. Beyond that, it is important to define all the sequencing strategy for patients to successively receive all the drugs that have demonstrated an increase in overall survival.

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background

Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed.

Methods

PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n = 3), lung (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), and melanoma (n = 8) malignancies treated with ICIs were evaluated. The reference willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000/QALY.

Results

Nivolumab was not cost-effective over chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head/neck cancers (HNCs). For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nivolumab was not cost-effective for a general cohort, but increased PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in CE. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for both previously treated and newly-diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. For genitourinary cancers (GUCs, renal cell and bladder cancers), nivolumab and pembrolizumab were not cost-effective options. Regarding metastatic/unresected melanoma, ipilimumab monotherapy is less cost-effective than nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. The addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab monotherapy was not adequately cost-effective. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy offered comparable CE profiles.

Conclusions

With limited data and from the reference WTP, nivolumab was not cost-effective for HNCs. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for NSCLC; although not the case for nivolumab, applying PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in adequate CE. Most data for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in GUCs did not point towards adequate CE. Contrary to ipilimumab, either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is cost-effective for melanoma. Despite these conclusions, it cannot be overstated that careful patient selection is critical for CE. Future publication of CE investigations and clinical trials (along with longer follow-up of existing data) could substantially alter conclusions from this analysis.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy in advanced renal-cell carcinoma

Background

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab improves overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared with sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). The current study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for first-line treatment of advanced RCC from the payer perspectives high- and middle-income regions.

Methods

A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of first-line sunitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment associated with advanced RCC. The clinical and utility data were obtained from published reports. The cost data were acquired for the payer perspectives of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainties of the results. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab gained 0.70–0.76 QALYs compared with sunitinib. Our analysis determined the following ICERs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in first-line advanced RCC treatment: US $ 85,506 /QALY; UK $ 126,499/QALY; and China $ 4682/QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for body weight and for the prices of nivolumab, sunitinib and ipilimumab.

Conclusions

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced RCC in comparison with standard sunitinib, which is considered to be cost-effective in the US and China but not in the UK.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-018-0440-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.