Assessing the Value of Cemiplimab for Adults With Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cost‑effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in Chinese patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

The RATIONALE-306 study revealed that patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) could benefit from treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy for treating OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Partitioned survival model estimated the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for treating OSCC using RATIONALE-306 data. Costs and utilities were obtained from local databases and published studies. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were outcomes. Price simulation were conducted at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an ICER of USD 27,896/QALY, gained an additional 0.414 QALYs and 0.751 life-years, and increased the cost by USD 11,560. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at the WTP of USD 38,258/QALY with probability of 94.43%. When the price in China was less than USD 3.714 per mg, the price simulation results indicated that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an INHB of 0.112 QALYs and an INMB of USD 4,279 compared with chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Based on the sensitivity analyses, the above results were stable. A general trend was observed for subgroups with better survival benefits related to a higher probability of cost-effectiveness. From the Chinese healthcare perspective, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as a first-line therapy for OSCC. These findings can help clinicians make optimal clinical decisions and assist decision-makers in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in clinical practice.

First-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Patients with PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) were significantly more likely to survive when treated with serplulimab plus cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (serplulimab-CF). At this point, it is unknown whether this expensive therapy is cost-effective. From the Chinese healthcare system's perspective, we aimed to evaluate serplulimab-CF versus CF alone for cost-effectiveness. A partitioned survival model was constructed based on the ASTRUM-007 trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A further analysis of subgroups and scenarios was conducted. The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,258/QALY or $84,866/QALY is defined as three times the per capita gross domestic product value of the general region or affluent region. Compared with CF alone, in the overall (scenario 1), patients with PD-L1 expression level of 1 ≤ CPS < 10 (scenario 2), and patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (scenario 3) populations, the ICERs were $69,025/QALY, $82,533/QALY, and $75,436/QALY for serplulimab-CF. Nevertheless, the probability of serplulimab-CF becoming cost-effective based on scenarios 1, 2, and 3 is only 2.71%, 0.94%, and 2.84%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY. When serplulimab costs < $4.84/mg, serplulimab-CF may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY; otherwise, CF was preferred. Similar results were obtained from sensitivity analyses, suggesting the robustness of these findings. There was no cost-effectiveness in general regions of China for serplulimab-CF in PD-L1-positive ESCC compared to CF, although it is probably considered cost-effective in affluent regions. Serplulimab-CF may achieve favorable cost-effectiveness by lowering the price of serplulimab.

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective.

Methods

A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab.

Conclusion

The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and etoposide-platinum in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (DEP) showed sustained overall survival improvements in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to etoposide-platinum (EP), but adding tremelimumab to DEP (DTEP) did not significantly improve outcomes. A third-party payer perspective is taken here to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DTEP, DEP, and EP for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness was evaluated by partitioning survival models into 3 mutually exclusive health states. In this model, clinical characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the CASPIAN. Model robustness was evaluated through 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Outcome measurements included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, life-years, incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. The analysis was conducted with a 10-year lifetime horizon in a United States setting.

RESULTS

Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were associated with an increment of 0.480 and 0.313 life-years, and an increment of 0.247 and 0.165 QALYs, as well as a $139,788 and $170,331 increase in cost per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $565,807/QALY and $1033,456/QALY, respectively. The incremental net health benefit and incremental net monetary benefit of DEP or DTEP were -0.685 QALYs and -$102,729, or -0.971 QALYs and -$145,608 at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated. DTEP and DEP were 100% unlikely to be cost-effective if the willingness to pay threshold was $150,000/QALY. DEP was cost-effective compared to EP when durvalumab was priced below $0.994/mg. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were unlikely to be considered cost-effective across all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

DEP and DTEP were not cost-effective options in the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC compared with EP, from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus the EXTREME regimen in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a cost-effectiveness analysis

In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

Objectives: A cost-effectiveness study of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China was conducted versus chemotherapy alone. Methods: Survival data were derived from CameL-Sq. Cost-effectiveness is indicated by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness-to-pay threshold. The partitioned survival model stability was assessed by sensitivity analyses. Results: With camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.83, and cost increased by $21,259/patient versus chemotherapy. The ICER was $25,674/quality-adjusted life year. The probability of cost-effectiveness was >90% regardless of PD-L1 expression level. Regardless of the variation in each parameter across a wide range, the ICER never transcended the willingness to pay. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line serplulimab combined with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Background

For patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), serplulimab plus chemotherapy is beneficial as the first-line treatment. It is uncertain whether serplulimab plus chemotherapy will be more cost-effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to assess the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with ES-SCLC.

Materials and methods

This study employed a partitioned survival model. Patients in the model were selected from ASTRUM-005 for their clinical characteristics and outcomes. In order to assess the robustness of the model, we conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analyzes as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Subgroup analyzes were also conducted. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were analyzed.

Results

Based on the base-case analysis, serplulimab plus chemotherapy contributed to an increase in 0.826 life-years and 0.436 QALYs; an incremental cost of $52,331, yielded ICER of $120,149/QALY. Based on the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY, the INHB was -0.954 QALYs and - 0.169 QALYs and the INMB was -$35,924 and -$14,626, respectively. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results, serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of serplulimab and body weight had the greatest impact on the model. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $86,569/QALY when the cost of serplulimab was less than $5.24/mg or when the weight of the patient was less than 40.96 kg. Regardless of the WTP threshold at $37,669/QALY or $86,569. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective in all subgroups.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective, despite having a prior clinical benefical and a relative safety profile compared with chemotherapy. With the reduction in the price of serplulimab, ES-SCLC patients treated with serplulimab plus chemotherapy may be able to achieve a favorable cost-effectiveness rate.

Electrochemotherapy vs radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Electrochemotherapy has gained international traction and commendation in national guidelines as an effective tool in the management of cutaneous malignancies not amenable to surgical resection. Despite this, no level 5 evidence exists comparing it to radiotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous malignancies. This systematic review aimed to examine the literature directly and indirectly comparing electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The protocol for this review was registered on the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the protocol ID CRD42021285415. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were undertaken from database inception to 28 December 2021. Studies in humans comparing treatment with electrochemotherapy to radiotherapy and reporting tumour response with a minimum four week follow-up were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results are provided as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Two case series with a total of 92 patients were identified as relevant to this study. Both case series examined patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. One case series examined elderly patients with predominantly head/neck lesions. The other examined younger patients with predominantly limb lesions who had cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma directly attributable to a rare skin condition.

CONCLUSION

There is little literature presenting comparative data for electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases. Included studies were marred by serious risk of bias particularly due to confounding. The inherent bias and heterogeneity of the included studies precluded synthesis of a consolidated comparison of clinical outcomes between the two therapies. Further research is required in this domain in the form of clinical trials and observational studies to inform guidelines for electrochemotherapy treatment.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of periorbital squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To report on the outcomes of immunotherapy in patients with locally advanced periorbital squamous cell carcinoma.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of seven consecutive patients with locally advanced periorbital cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma treated with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. Treatments and therapeutic outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the seven patients, six were treated with cemiplimab, and one was treated with pembrolizumab. Five patients were treated with immunotherapy as neoadjuvant therapy before planned surgical resection; two patients received immunotherapy for treatment of advanced recurrent lesions deemed unresectable following multiple previous excisions and radiation therapy. In all seven patients, measurable clinical and/or radiologic response was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the emerging role of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in the management of locally advanced periorbital cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

Background and objective

Tislelizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line option for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly prolonged survival outcomes; however, evidence regarding its relative efficacy and cost is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone, from the health care perspective in China.

Methods

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used for this study. The survival data were obtained from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Cost-effectiveness was defined as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Incremental net health benefits (INHB), incremental net monetary benefits (INMB), and subgroup analyses were also assessed. Sensitivity analyses were further established to assess the model stability.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 1.48 life-years, and yielded an increase of $16,631 in cost per patient. The INMB and INHB were $7,510 and 0.20 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, respectively. The ICER was $26,162/QALY. The outcomes were most sensitive to the HR of OS for tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm. The probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective was 87.66% and >50% in most of the subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $86,376/QALY, the probability achieved 99.81%. Furthermore, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective in subgroups of patients with liver metastases and PD-L1 expression ≥50% were 90.61 and 94.35%, respectively.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background

In patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), cemiplimab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) significantly compared to chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of these drugs is still uncertain. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States.

Materials and methods

The cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC was evaluated using a partitioned survival model containing three mutually incompatible health states. The clinical characteristics and outcomes used in the model were gathered from EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial. We have conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis in order to evaluate the robustness of the model. The primary outcomes considered were the costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB).

Results

Treatment of aNSCLC with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy increased efficacy by 0.237 QALYs and was associated with an increased total cost of $50,796 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $214,256/QALY gained. At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the INHB of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 0.203 QALYs and the INMB was $304,704 compared to chemotherapy alone. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that there was only a 0.04% chance that cemiplimab with chemotherapy would be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The performance of model was mainly determined by the price of cemiplimab, according to a one-way sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

From the third-party payer perspective, cemiplimab combined chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of aNSCLC at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States.

Sugemalimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Sugemalimab is a newly developed inhibitor of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). As a first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), sugemalimab plus chemotherapy (Sugema-Chemo) has been proven effective. Still, its cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Sugema-Chemo from a health care perspective in China.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was used. According to the GEMSTONE-302 trial, the clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients were obtained. The outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). The robustness of the model was further evaluated, as well as subgroup analyses. When the ICER was lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold ($38,017/QALY or $86,376/QALY, defined as three times the per capita gross domestic product value of the general region and Beijing), the cost-effectiveness of Sugema-Chemo was assumed for general regions or Beijing.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, Sugema-Chemo resulted in an incremental gain of 0.82 QALYs, an incremental gain of 1.26 life-years, as well as an average increase cost of $72,472. The ICER was $88,744/QALY. Model outcomes were susceptible to average body weight and cost of sugemalimab. Sugema-Chemo was cost-effective at a WTP threshold of 86,376/QALY if the average body weight was <62.44 kg or if the price of sugemalimab was <$2.996/mg. As well, Sugema-Chemo was also cost-effective when the cost of sugemalimab was <$1.839/mg for a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. Sugema-Chemo had a probability of > 50% being considered cost-effective in most subgroups at the $86,376/QALY threshold. However, Sugema-Chemo did not achieve cost-effectiveness (0%) in any of the subgroups when WTP was set at $38,017/QALY.

Conclusion

Sugema-Chemo might not be cost-effective in patients with metastatic NSCLC in China. In deciding between Sugema-Chemo and chemotherapy alone, it is essential to consider both the body weight of patients and the price of sugemalimab. A price reduction of sugemalimab under the National Healthcare Security Administration may be an effective measure to improve the cost-effectiveness of the drug.

Pembrolizumab vs cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 expression levels of at least 50%: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Pembrolizumab and cemiplimab have been approved as treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression from a societal perspective in the United States.

Materials and methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis integration of the network meta-analysis framework was performed using data from the EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE 024, and KEYNOTE 042 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A network meta-analysis including 2289 patients was constructed, and the Markov and partitioned survival (PS) models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of cemiplimab for the treatment of high PD-L1 expression (≥50% of tumor cells). The time horizon was 10 years. The main outcomes were overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). The robustness of the model was verified using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted.

Results

Treatment of advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression with pembrolizumab achieved 0.093 QALYs and was associated with an incremental cost of $10,657 compared with cemiplimab, yielding an ICER of $114,246/QALY. The ICER in the PS model was similar to that in the Markov model, with a difference of $3,093/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY, INHB, and INMB of pembrolizumab were -0.013 QALYs and -$1,329, respectively, and the probability of cemiplimab was 51% when compared with pembrolizumab. When the WTP threshold increased to $150,000/QALY, the INHB and INMB of pembrolizumab were 0.022 QALYs and $3,335, respectively, and the probability of pembrolizumab was 51.85%. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the models were sensitive to pembrolizumab and cemiplimab costs. Subgroup analysis revealed that treatment with pembrolizumab was related to a higher INHB in several subgroups, including patients with brain metastases at baseline.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the WTP threshold should be considered when choosing between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab to treat advanced NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Reducing the cost of pembrolizumab may lead to valuable outcomes.

Clinicopathological characteristics and clinical morbidity in high-risk head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma patients in Western Australia

AIM

To examine the clinicopathological features, mortality and morbidity in high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) patients in Western Australia (WA).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted through hospital record review on cSCC patients discussed at multidisciplinary meetings at the two largest WA hospitals between March 2015 and December 2016.

RESULTS

129/ 141 patients were evaluable with median follow-up of 43.9 (range 3.0-53.2) months. Patients were predominantly older males (84%) with significant comorbidities [Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥5 (76%)] and history of previous non-melanoma skin cancer (57%) with advanced disease (57% stage IV without distant metastasis, AJCC 7^th edition). Pathological high-risk features were common including nodal extracapsular extension (47%) and cranial nerve involvement (16%). Clinical morbidity was significant with a median of 2 (range 0-13) excisions and 2 (range 0-21) cSCC-related hospitalisations for any cSCC event following the index case discussion. Recurrences of the primary index lesion occurred in 60% of patients and 20% had ≥2 recurrences. Median overall survival for patients with non-metastatic disease was 39.8 (range 25.9-53.7) months and 16.1 (range 0.2-32.0) months for metastatic disease. CCI ≥5, advanced nodal stage and ≥2 recurrences were significantly associated with mortality on multivariable analyses (p<0.05). Nodal extracapsular extension and any recurrences were identified as significant risk factors for disease-specific mortality on multivariable analyses (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

High-risk cSCC patients have significant health needs represented by high baseline comorbidities, multiplicity of cSCC events and the number of health-care associated interventions. There is an unmet need for robust cancer data collection. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Cemiplimab in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

Cemiplimab, a high-affinity, highly potent human monoclonal antibody that binds to the programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) receptor, is the only drug to attain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and marketing authorization from the European Commission for use in patients with metastatic and locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation therapy as a first- or later-line treatment. In pivotal phase II clinical testing, cemiplimab showed rapid and substantial antitumor efficacy and acceptable safety. This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of cemiplimab in patients with advanced CSCC. To this end, I reviewed EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and clinical trial registries/databases by using the following keywords alone or in combination: "cemiplimab," "Libtayo," "cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma," "REGN2810," and "SER439684." Cemiplimab showed clinical efficacy and considerable safety and was associated with low rates of treatment discontinuation (7%) and death (3%). However, the current recommendation is primarily based on only phase II clinical testing due to the absence of an approved comparator agent.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cemiplimab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 Expression Levels of at Least 50

INTRODUCTION

Cemiplimab may significantly increase overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 level of at least 50%. Therefore, there is a need to consider the cost-effectiveness of using this therapy for this indication.

METHODS

This Markov model was built to estimate the cost and effectiveness of cemiplimab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC based on the data from the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment of advanced NSCLC with cemiplimab added 0.546 QALYs (1.492 LYs) and resulted in an incremental cost of $22,069.804 compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,390.412 per QALY gained. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis found that the cost of cemiplimab was the most sensitive factor in our study. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective was 100%. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that high PD-L1 expression (≥ 90%, > 60 to < 90% and ≥ 50 to ≤ 60%) also kept the incremental cost-effectiveness stable at $63,415.2450 per QALY, $61,896.446 per QALY and $-71,921.259 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of US payers, cemiplimab is cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.