Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer☆

Cost of Illness of Head and Neck Cancer in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. The condition and its treatment often lead to marked morbidities and, for some patients, premature death. Inferentially, HNC imposes a significant economic burden on society. This study aims to provide a comprehensive and detailed estimation of the cost of illness of HNC for Sweden in 2019.

METHODS

This is a prevalence-based cost of illness study. Resource utilization and related costs are quantified using national registry data. A societal perspective is applied, including (1) direct costs for healthcare utilization, (2) costs for informal care from family and friends, and (3) costs for productivity loss due to morbidity and premature death. The human capital approach is used when estimating productivity losses.

RESULTS

The societal cost of HNC for Sweden in 2019 was estimated at €92 million, of which the direct costs, costs for informal care, and costs for productivity loss represented 34%, 2%, and 64%, respectively. Oral cavity cancer was the costliest HNC, followed by oropharyngeal cancer, whereas nasopharyngeal cancer was the costliest per person. The cost of premature mortality comprised 60% of the total cost of productivity loss. Males accounted for 65% of direct costs and 67% of costs for productivity loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The societal cost of HNC is substantial and constitutes a considerable burden to Swedish society. The results of the present study may be used by policymakers for planning and allocation of resources. Furthermore, the information may be used for future cost-effectiveness analyses.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 insertions

Objective

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy has been proved to be an efficient treatment strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions. The aim of this study was to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab-chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model based on the data derived from the PAPILLON trial. We evaluated the cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the influence of different parameters on this model.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab combined with chemotherapy treatment gained an incremental effectiveness of 0.473 QALYs and an incremental cost of $361,950.952, which resulted in an ICER of $765,224/QALY. The ICER was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15,0000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that amivantamab cost was the leading influential factor in the model.

Conclusions

Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. The costly price of amivantamab is one of the major reasons for the high cost of this combined treatment strategy. Therefore, it is imperative to take into account the high cost of amivantamab in the subsequent clinical application and strive to attain a relative equilibrium between its significant clinical benefit and economic encumbrance.

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 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.

Peeling the I-Onion to Demystify Pseudoprogression

In this issue of Cancer Cell, Topp et al. analyze data from 799 patients treated with pembrolizumab beyond progression by RECIST 1.1 across six trials. Although 8.9%-24.4% of patients demonstrate a ≥30% reduction in target lesions, conversely 11%-18% of patients had a ≥20% increase. The benefits of treatment beyond progression must be carefully weighed against physical and financial toxicities.

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 analysis of sintilimab plus IBI305 versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

Sintilimab combined with IBI305 treatment regimen had potential clinical benefits than sorafenib in the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma (HCC). However, whether sintilimab plus IBI305 has economic benefits in China remains unclear.

METHODS

From the perspective of Chinese payers, we used the Markov model to simulate patients with HCC receiving treatment with sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib. The transition probability between health states was estimated using the parametric survival model, and the cumulative medical costs and utility of the two treatment methods were estimated. Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the evaluation index, sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

Compared to sorafenib, sintilimab plus IBI305 generated an additional $17552.17 and 0.33 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an ICER of $52817.89. The analysis outcomes were most sensitive to the total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,334, sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a 1.28% probability of being cost-effective. The total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305 should be reduced by at least 31.9% to be accepted by Chinese payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of whether the price of sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib is covered by Medicare, sintilimab plus IBI305 is unlikely to be cost-effective for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.

A non-inferiority randomized phase III trial of standard immunotherapy by checkpoint inhibitors vs. reduced dose intensity in responding patients with metastatic cancer: the MOIO protocol study

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy (IO) has become a standard of care for treating various types of metastatic cancers and has significantly improved clinical outcome. With the exception of metastatic melanoma in complete response for which treatment can be stopped at 6 months, these treatments are currently administered until either disease progression for some IO, 2 years for others, or unacceptable toxicity. However, a growing number of studies are reporting maintenance of response despite discontinuation of therapy. There is currently no evidence of a dose effect of IO in pharmacokinetic studies. Maintaining efficacy despite a reduction in treatment intensity by decreasing the frequency of administration in patients with highly selected metastatic cancer, is the hypothesis evaluated in the MOIO study.

METHOD/DESIGN

This non-inferiority, randomized phase III study aims to compare the standard regimen to a 3 monthly regimen of variousIO drugs in adult patients with metastatic cancer in partial (PR) or complete response (CR) after 6 months of standard IO dosing (except melanoma in CR). This is a French national study conducted in 36 centers. The main objective is to demonstrate that the efficacy of a three-monthly administration is not unacceptably less efficacious than a standard administration. Secondary objectives are cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QOL), anxiety, fear of relapse, response rate, overall survival and toxicity. After 6 months of standard IO, patients with partial or complete response will be randomized 1:1 between standard IO or a reduced intensity dose of IO, administered every 3 months. The randomization will be stratified on therapy line,, tumor type, IO type and response status. The primary endpoint is the hazard ratio of progression-free survival. With a planned study duration of 6 years, including 36 months enrolment time, 646 patients are planned to demonstrate with a statistical level of evidence of 5% that the reduced IO regimen is non-inferior to the standard IO regimen, with a relative non-inferiority margin set at 1.3.

DISCUSSION

Should the hypothesis of non-inferiority with an IO reduced dose intensity be validated, alternate scheduling could preserve efficacy while being cost-effective and allowing a reduction of the toxicity, with an increase in patient's QOL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05078047.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The KEYNOTE-590 trial showed that individuals with advanced esophageal cancer who received Pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line regimen achieved a significant extension of survival. However, this treatment option increases the financial burden on patients and the economic benefits remain to be further evaluated.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate 10-year survival of patients with esophageal cancer from the perspective of United States (US) Medicare payers. We evaluated the economics of Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the PD-L1 positive score (CPS ≥10) and any PD-L1 expression groups, respectively. We estimated total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the results. Subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The analysis results showed that the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $293,513.17/QALYs in the any PD-L1 expression group. This exceeded the threshold of willingness to pay ($150,000/QALYs). ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab and the ICERs exceeded $150,000/QALYs in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that first-line pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for advanced esophageal cancer in the US, regardless of PD-L1 expression status.

Immunotherapy and Biomarker Testing in Recurrent and Metastatic Head and Neck Cancers: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations for practicing physicians and other health care providers on immunotherapy and biomarker testing for head and neck cancers.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, and patient advocacy experts to conduct a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 2000 through 2022. Outcomes of interest included survival, overall response, and locoregional control. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 28 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

When possible, evidence-based recommendations were developed to address biomarker testing, first-line treatment regimens based on programmed death ligand-1 scores, immunotherapy in platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, immunotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and radiation therapy in combination with immunotherapy for treatment of local recurrence.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/head-neck-cancer-guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Combined with Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Background: Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis and currently ranks sixth in global cancer mortality rates. The ORIENT-15 trial showed sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, plus chemotherapy in treating patients with esophageal cancer compared with chemotherapy alone. Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year horizon was developed based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare payers. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for sintilimab combined with chemotherapy based on a questionnaire. Patients were grouped into the sintilimab group based on a positive score of 10 or more (combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 groups), and those with any other PD-L1 expression were randomized into patient groups. We estimated the cost and the effectiveness of sintilimab on the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness results. Results: In the base-case analysis, compared with chemotherapy alone, the ICER of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for all patients was $21024.05 per QALY, and in the CPS≥10 group, it was $20974.23 per QALY. This was lower than $37653 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that ICERs were most sensitive to the price of sintilimab. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer as its first-line treatment would be more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone in Chinese patients.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for American patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background

The treatment paradigm of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has changed in recent years. Checkmate 743 demonstrate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed good clinical benefits compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of MPM. The study is aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. platinum plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable MPM.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CheckMate 743 trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness's results.

Results

In the base case analysis, the incremental healthcare costs and QALYs for Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy are $196,604.22 and 0.53, respectively, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $372,414.28/QALYs for the model cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic MPM. However, Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was no probability that Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was cost-effective within the fluctuation range of other model parameters in first-line in unresectable MPM. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of Nivolumab was the most sensitive parameter.

Conclusions

The ICER of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is above the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S, which suggests that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable MPM may be not a cost-effective choice.

Pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy versus cetuximab plus chemotherapy to treat recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: An updated KEYNOTE-048 based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recently, updated data from KEYNOTE-048 revealed that pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy could improve progression-free survival (PFS)2 compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov structure was conducted to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC from the United States payer's perspective. Total cost, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Additional analyses were conducted in the total population and in two different programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive scores (CPSs) (≥1 and ≥ 20) population. Sensitivity analysis were used to test the stability of the model.

RESULTS

When compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy, the pembrolizumab monotherapy strategy was dominated by lower cost and better efficacy in all three populations. The incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) yielded by pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy were $16016.88 and 0.11 in the total population, and $24467.47 and 0.18 and $30448.46 and 0.20 in the populations with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and CPS ≥ 20, respectively, leading to ICERs of $147876.14, $134237.84, and $153660.78 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy are cost-effective strategies compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy when the value of willingness-to-pay (WTP) was $150000 per QALY for the total and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 populations with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

PD-L1 expression in recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the Programmed Cell Death Ligand (PD-L1) expression at diagnosis and relapse in patients with head and neck carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with radio(chemo)therapy.

METHODS

PD-L1 immunohistochemistry was performed in tumor cells (TC) and immune cells (IC) in 44 patients and scored as 0 = 0%, 1 =  < 5%, 2 = 6-49% or 3 =  ≥ 50% cells.

RESULTS

PD-L1 expression on TC before RT was scored as 0, 1, 2 and 3 in 28, 4, 8 and 4 patients, respectively. In 10 patients, IC did not show any PD-L1 expression; while in 8, 16, and 10 patients, PD-L1 expression was scored 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At relapse, 7/36 patients had a PD-L1 expression positivation in TC, while the opposite was observed in 6 patients. Overall, survival at 2 years was higher in patients with PD-L1 expression (90% versus 62.5%, p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

PD-L1 expression may vary throughout the course of the disease. A re-evaluation of PD-L1 expression on biopsies at the time of recurrence should be recommended.

Emerging immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of head and neck cancers

Introduction: The benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) have been demonstrated through multiple studies to improve overall survival (OS) with decreased side effects when compared to the standard of care (SOC) treatment regimens in place for decades, leading to the approval of two ICIs, nivolumab and pembrolizumab. There has been a subsequent influx in the development of novel immunotherapy agents for the treatment of HNSCC. Areas covered: Data for anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibodies in treatment of R/M HNSCC will be reviewed. Emerging immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as combined therapies in HNSCC will be discussed. The role of predictive biomarkers, HPV-status, PD-L1 expression, and challenges related to treating patients with ICIs will be summarized. Expert opinion: A shift toward ICIs as SOC for the treatment of R/M HNSCC will continue as emerging immune checkpoints and combination therapies are evaluated. Response rates are variable in this patient population underlying the importance of identifying predictive biomarkers to aid in patient selection for ICI treatment.

How does the gut microbiome influence immune checkpoint blockade therapy?

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies are revolutionary cancer treatments; however, they only benefit about a third of patients. Therefore, extensive research is underway to find methods to improve their therapeutic efficacy. One avenue of study that has recently emerged is to consider the role the gut microbiome plays in therapeutic success. Several high-impact studies have repeatedly shown that the presence, composition and level of diversity of the gut flora directly impact cancer treatment outcome in both mice and patients. These studies have also highlighted the danger of using antibiotics shortly before or during cancer treatments. However, there are still several questions that need to be answered, including which bacteria promote the greatest benefit, the mechanisms by which they act and how we can use this information to influence treatment outcome. In this review, we explain how the gut microbiome was realized to be of such importance and propose hypotheses for why gut flora have such a critical impact on ICB therapeutic success. We also describe a hypothetical mechanism involving bacterial translocation out of the gut and into the tumor, whereby the bacteria act in an adjuvant capacity to facilitate an antitumor response. By highlighting key papers in the field, we hope to hasten research on the subject so as to find a means to improve the therapeutic efficacy of these ground-breaking cancer treatments.

Therapeutic applications of herbal/synthetic/bio-drug in oral cancer: An update

Oral cancer, as one of the most prevalent and invasive cancers that invade local tissue, can cause metastasis, and have high mortality. In 2018, around 355,000 worldwide oral cancers occurred and resulted in 177,000 deaths. Estimates for the year 2020 include about 53,260 new cases added to previous year's cases, and the estimated death toll from this cancer in 2020 is about 10,750 deaths more than previous years. Despite recent advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, unfortunately, 50% of people with cancer cannot be cured. Of course, it should be remembered that the type of treatment used greatly influences patient recovery. There are not many choices when it comes to treating oral cancer. Research efforts focusing on the discovery and evolution of innovative therapeutic approaches for oral cancer are essential. Such traditional methods of treating this type of cancer like surgery and chemotherapy, have evolved dramatically during the past thirty to forty years, but they continue to cause panic among patients due to their side effects. Therefore, it is necessary to study and use drugs that are less risky for the patient as well as to provide solutions to reduce chemotherapy-induced adverse events that prevent many therapeutic risks. As mentioned above, this study examines low-risk therapies such as herbal remedies, biological drugs, and synthetic drugs in the hope that they will be useful to physicians, researchers, and scientists around the world.

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 analysis of proton beam therapy for treatment decision making in paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China

Background

Cost-effectiveness is a pivotal consideration for clinical decision making of high-tech cancer treatment in developing countries. Intensity-modulated proton radiation therapy (IMPT, the advanced form of proton beam therapy) has been found to improve the prognosis of the patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers compared with intensity-modulated photon-radiation therapy (IMRT). However, the cost-effectiveness of IMPT has not yet been fully evaluated. This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of IMPT versus IMRT for treatment decision making of paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in Chinese settings.

Methods

A 3-state Markov model was designed for cost-effectiveness analysis. A base case evaluation was performed on a patient of 47-year-old (median age of patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China). Model robustness was examined by probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Markov cohort analysis and Tornado diagram. Cost-effective scenarios of IMPT were further identified by one-way sensitivity analyses and stratified analyses were performed for different age levels. The outcome measure of the model was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A strategy was defined as cost-effective if the ICER was below the societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China (30,828 US dollars ($) / quality-adjusted life year (QALY)).

Results

IMPT was identified as being cost-effective for the base case at the WTP of China, providing an extra 1.65 QALYs at an additional cost of $38,928.7 compared with IMRT, and had an ICER of $23,611.2 / QALY. Of note, cost-effective scenarios of IMPT only existed in the following independent conditions: probability of IMPT eradicating cancer ≥0.867; probability of IMRT eradicating cancer ≤0.764; or cost of IMPT ≤ $52,163.9. Stratified analyses for different age levels demonstrated that IMPT was more cost-effective in younger patients than older patients, and was cost-effective only in patients ≤56-year-old.

Conclusions

Despite initially regarded as bearing high treatment cost, IMPT could still be cost-effective for patients with paranasal sinus and nasal cavity cancers in China. The tumor control superiority of IMPT over IMRT and the patient’s age should be the principal considerations for clinical decision of prescribing this new irradiation technique.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A cost-effectiveness analysis from Chinese perspective

OBJECTIVES

The KEYNOTE-048 trial indicated pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), while pembrolizumab monotherapy is optimal for PD-L1 positive patient. This study was powered to determine the most cost-effective strategy for patient with different combined positive score (CPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to predict progression-free survival, disease progression, or death in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC based on data from the KEYNOTE-048 trial. Cost was obtained from West China Hospital, while utilities were referred to published studies. By using Monte Carlo simulations, acceptability curves were depicted to address the uncertainty of model inputs.

RESULTS

Compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $14,995 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in total population and $22,779 per QALY in patients with CPS ≥ 1. Comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with standard therapy led to an ICER of $43,230 per QALY in total population and $26,157 per QALY in patients with CPS ≥ 1. For patients with CPS ≥ 20, ICERs yield by immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy exceeded the threshold of willingness to pay we set, when compared with standard therapy. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was dominated by pembrolizumab alone in this patient population.

CONCLUSION

For HNSCC patients with different CPS, pembrolizumab alone was the optimal choice for total population and patients with CPS ≥ 1. Among patients with high CPS, immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy was not preferred over the standard therapy.

PD-1/PD-L1 Based Combinational Cancer Therapy: Icing on the Cake

Cancer has been a major global health problem due to its high morbidity and mortality. While many chemotherapy agents have been studied and applied in clinical trials or in clinic, their application is limited due to its toxic side effects and poor tolerability. Monoclonal antibodies specific to the PD-1 and PD-L1 immune checkpoints have been approved for the treatment of various tumors. However, the application of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors remains suboptimal and thus another strategy comes in to our sight involving the combination of checkpoint inhibitors with other agents, enhancing the therapeutic efficacy. Various novel promising approaches are now in clinical trials, just as icing on the cake. This review summarizes relevant investigations on combinatorial therapeutics based on PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the United States

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for recurrent/metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) in the US.Methods: We constructed a cohort-based partitioned survival model for three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death). Using overall survival and progression-free survival data from the nivolumab and investigator's choice (IC) arms of the CheckMate 141 study, the proportion of patients in each health state was estimated by parametric modeling over a 25-year period. Cost, utility, adverse event, and disease management data inputs were obtained from relevant literature and applied to patients in each health state. A scenario analysis was conducted assuming increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of variation in multiple parameters. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which probabilistic distributions were applied to each input during 1,000 model iterations was also conducted.Results: Total costs incurred were higher with nivolumab ($101,552) than with IC ($38,067). Nivolumab was associated with a higher number of life-years (LY; 1.21) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 0.89), compared with IC (0.68 and 0.42, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab compared with IC was $134,438 per QALY, and this remained qualitatively similar when increased uptake of subsequent immunotherapies was assumed ($129,603 per QALY). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings.Conclusions: These results suggest that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, nivolumab is a cost-effective option for therapy of SCCHN in the US.

Real-world treatment patterns, cost of care and effectiveness of therapies for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck pre and post approval of immuno-oncology agents

Aims: In 2016, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) following progression after initial platinum-based therapy. We sought to explore the uptake, effectiveness, and impact on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and total costs of care pre and post introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) agents.Materials and Methods: Recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients were identified from a healthcare claims clearinghouse by selecting patients with a claim for distant metastases or who initiated systemic therapy at least 120 days following discontinuation of platinum-based therapy. Two cohorts were created according to the date of post-platinum therapy (PPT) initiation: pre-IO = 08/01/2014-07/31/2015; post-IO = 08/01/2016-07/31/2017. Treatment patterns and effectiveness (duration of treatment, time to next treatment) during first-line (1 L) PPT, HRU, and costs were compared between propensity-score matched patients from each cohort.Results: Of 716 patients identified (pre-IO = 265, post-IO = 451) 46.3% of post-IO patients received IO post-platinum. In 229 matched patients 20.0% of the post-IO compared to 10.7% of the pre-IO (p=.02) had at least a 6 month duration of 1 L PPT. Inpatient admissions during 1 L PPT: 34.1% post-IO versus 48.0% pre-IO (p= <.01). PPPM total costs of care in 1 L PPT were significantly greater post-IO ($11,535) compared to pre-IO ($9,054, p=.002). Time to next treatment (from 1 L PPT start) was 6.1 months pre-IO versus 7.4 months post-IO (p=.046).Limitations: Recurrent SCCHN patients were identified using a validated claims-based algorithm but misclassification may occur. Requiring patients to have received 1 L PPT the pre-IO cohort may be systematically different that the post-IO cohort as pre-IO patients were more likely to have not received further treatment beyond 1 L PPT.Conclusions: The significant uptake of IO therapy resulted in longer durations of therapy, lower rates of hospitalizations although higher treatment costs. The results suggest IO treatment provides additional clinical benefits to recurrent/metastatic SCCHN patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

PURPOSE

A randomized phase III trial demonstrated that gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival compared with fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The cost-effectiveness analysis was designed to identify the economic option for metastatic NPC from a Chinese societal perspective.

METHODS

We established a Markov model that involved three health states representing the stages of disease to simulate therapy. Survival data of clinical outcomes were derived from the trial and adjusted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Transition probabilities and health utilities were obtained from the clinical trial and published literatures. The cost-effective strategy was estimated for these treatments using a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to study the influences of parameters.

RESULTS

GP treatment group produced a gain of 0.37 QALYs with an incremental cost of $2520.80, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6812.97 per QALY, compared with FP treatment ($15,530.96 versus $13,010.16). The ICER was lower than the accepted WTP threshold, which was 3 times gross domestic product per capita of China ($25,749 per QALY).

CONCLUSION

GP regimen is more cost-effective compared with FP regimen as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with metastatic NPC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Pembrolizumab In The Treatment Of Advanced Recurrent Metastatic Head And Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma In China And The United States

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, has recently gained prominence as a second-line treatment for recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (R/M HNSCC). This study compares the acceptance and different influencing factors of pembrolizumab in the treatment of R/M HNSCC in developed (i.e., the United States) and developing (i.e., China) countries through cost-effectiveness analysis and provides valuable suggestions for clinical decision making.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed using TreeAge Pro 2015 software to evaluate the economic value of four treatment strategies. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used as economic indicators for incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. The stability of the model was evaluated by one-way sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The ICERs for the pembrolizumab group versus PD-L1 CPS treatment in China and the US were $7892/QALY and $11,900/QALY, respectively. All ICERs were less than the threshold of $29,306 in China and $50,000 in the US; thus, pembrolizumab is cost effective. Sensitivity analysis confirmed a stable economic advantage in the single-drug regimen of pembrolizumab in China and the US.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab monotherapy as a second-line treatment for R/M HNSCC presents more health benefits in comparison with the standard, PD-L1 TPS and PD-L1 CPS groups in China and the US.

Clinical and economic burden of head and neck cancer: a nationwide retrospective cohort study from France

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical and economic burden of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in France.

Methods

All 53,255 incident adult patients discharged with a first diagnosis of HNSCC in 2010–2012 were identified from the 2008–2013 French National Hospital Discharge (PMSI) database. We conducted a retrospective longitudinal analysis of prognosis and direct costs attributable to HNSCC.

Results

Direct medical costs attributable to HNSCC care amounted to 665 million euros in 2012 in France. The majority (62%) of incident patients were 64 years old or less at HNSCC diagnosis and incurred 1.3-fold higher mean direct costs as compared to elderly patients (41,909 vs 32,221 euros over 3 years, respectively; p<0.001). HNSCC stage at initial treatment was the major driver of mean (SD) direct costs over 3 years (p<0.001): 19,819 (23,150) euros in 31% patients diagnosed at early stage; 46,791 (34,841) euros in 60% patients diagnosed at locally advanced stage; and 43,377 (33,953) euros in 9% patients diagnosed with distant metastasis. About half patients died over 3 years at a median (IQR) age of 63 (56–75) years resulting in 10.9 years-of-life lost on average per incident patient.

Conclusion

The present study suggests that the clinical and economic burden of HNSCC is substantial in France.

A Q-TWiST Analysis Comparing Nivolumab and Therapy of Investigator's Choice in Patients with Recurrent/Metastatic Platinum-Refractory Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

OBJECTIVES

In the CheckMate 141 trial (NCT02105636), nivolumab demonstrated survival, health-related quality of life, and healthcare resource utilization benefits vs single-agent therapy of investigator's choice (IC) (methotrexate, docetaxel or cetuximab) in patients with platinum-refractory recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). We assessed between-treatment differences in quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (Q-TWiST).

METHODS

Survival data from CheckMate 141 (nivolumab, n = 240; IC, n = 121) was partitioned into toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST), and relapse (REL). TOX was defined as time spent with all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events after randomization, before disease progression. TWiST was defined as time not in TOX or REL. REL was defined as time between disease progression and death. Utility values derived from three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire data from CheckMate 141 were used to calculate Q-TWiST as the utility-weighted sum of the mean duration in each health state.

RESULTS

The between-group difference in Q-TWiST score was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval 1.17-1.29) favoring nivolumab (p < 0.001). The nivolumab group experienced significantly longer mean time in TWiST (3.82 vs 2.78 months) and REL (4.02 vs 3.30 months) compared with the IC group (p < 0.001). Mean time in TOX was lower for nivolumab vs IC (0.30 vs 0.37 months, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In CheckMate 141, nivolumab resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful gains (relative difference > 10%) in quality-adjusted survival vs standard of care in patients with R/M SCCHN.

Estimating health state utility from activities of daily living in the French National Hospital Discharge Database: a feasibility study with head and neck cancer

Background

Health state utility (HSU) is a core component of QALYs and cost-effectiveness analysis, although HSU is rarely estimated among a representative sample of patients. We explored the feasibility of assessing HSU in head and neck cancer from the French National Hospital Discharge database.

Methods

An exhaustive sample of 53,258 incident adult patients with a first diagnosis of head and neck cancer was identified in 2010–2012. We used a cross-sectional approach to define five health states over two periods: three "cancer stages at initial treatment" (early, locally advanced or metastatic stage); a "relapse state" and otherwise a "relapse-free state" in the follow-up of patients initially treated at early or locally advanced stage. In patients admitted in post-acute care, a two-parameter graded response model (Item Response Theory) was estimated from all 144,012 records of six Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and the latent health state scale underlying ADLs was calibrated with the French EQ-5D-3 L social value set. Following linear interpolation between all assessments of the patient, daily estimates of utility in post-acute care were averaged by health state, patient and month of follow-up. Finally, HSU was estimated by health state and month of follow-up for the whole patient population after controlling for survivorship and selection in post-acute care.

Results

Head and neck cancer was generally associated with poor HSU estimates in a real-life setting. As compared to “distant metastasis at initial treatment”, mean HSU was higher in other health states, although numerical differences were small (0.45 versus around 0.54). It was primarily explained by the negative effects on HSU of an older age (38.4% aged ≥70 years in “early stage at initial treatment”) and comorbidities (> 50% in other health states). HSU estimates significantly improved over time in the “relapse-free state” (from 8 to 12 months of follow-up).

Conclusions

HSU estimates in head and neck cancer were primarily driven by age at diagnosis, comorbidities, and time to assessment of cancer survivors. This feasibility study highlights the potential of estimating HSU within and across severe conditions in a systematic way at the national level.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-019-1195-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.